Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01197/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01197-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Defendant
Rick D. Fox
Plaintiff
Trans Union, LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICK D. FOX, 

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION 

SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01197-ADA-SAB

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR 

DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO BE FILED

(ECF No. 39)

On June 21, 2023, the parties filed a notice of settlement as to Defendant Trans Union, 

LLC only. (ECF No. 6.) On June 22, 2023, the Court vacated all pending matters and dates and 

ordered the parties to file dispositional documents no later than July 12, 2023. (ECF No. 37.) 

On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file dispositional 

documents. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff proffers the settlement documents were signed and returned 

to Defendant, and Plaintiff understands the settlement check has been prepared and should be sent 

to Plaintiff by July 28, 2023. On this basis, Plaintiff requests an extension of the date to file 

dispositional documents until August 4, 2023. Plaintiff proffers this constitutes good cause for an 

extension. The Court disagrees. 

As the Court cautioned the parties in its prior order, titled “Order re: Notice of Settlement, 

Case 1:22-cv-01197-DAD-SCR Document 40 Filed 07/13/23 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Ordering Dispositional Documents, and Advising Parties of Court’s Practice Concerning 

Retention of Jurisdiction,” where there is no specific reason for requiring additional time to 

dismiss the Defendant aside from completing performance under the settlement agreement, no 

additional time shall be granted. (See ECF No. 37 at 1.) The Court further cautioned the parties 

that, should they seek an extension of the dispositional documents filing deadline, 

Plaintiff may request an extension of the deadline upon a 

demonstration of specific good cause. However in this regard, the 

parties are advised that once the terms of a settlement agreement are 

finalized and the settlement agreement is signed by the parties,

dismissal is not dependent on performance but rather settlement of 

the action. Further this Court generally declines generic requests to 

retain jurisdiction following dismissal, absent a specific request and 

showing of good cause, and such retention requires a subsequent 

order of approval from the Court retaining jurisdiction. See

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378 

(1994) (“Neither the Rule nor any provision of law provides for 

jurisdiction of the court over disputes arising out of an agreement 

that produces the stipulation ... [e]nforcement of the settlement 

agreement, however, whether through award of damages or decree 

of specific performance, is more than just a continuation or renewal 

of the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for 

jurisdiction.”

(ECF No. 37 at 2.) 

Plaintiff’s unilateral request for an extension of time indicates the agreement is complete 

and additional time is only sought because Plaintiff has not yet received his settlement check. As 

the Court previously noted, this does not constitute good cause. Further, Plaintiff’s request for an 

extension, filed on the date of the deadline, does not demonstrate diligence and is not well-taken. 

Plaintiff has provided no additional good cause in this matter. He indicates he mailed a fullyexecuted settlement agreement to Defendant on an unknown date. It is unclear whether either 

party acted diligently to conclude their settlement matters in this action. On this basis, Plaintiff’s 

request for an extension until August 4, 2023 shall be denied. Instead, as the deadline to file 

dispositional documents expired yesterday, the Court will permit the parties to file the documents 

until July 20, 2023. If further extension is required, the requesting party must demonstrate 

extremely good cause, as defined by the foregoing authorities; however, the parties are advised 

that the Court is not inclined to grant further extensions in this matter. Further, the parties are 

reminded that requests to extend filing deadlines that are made on the eve of a deadline will be 

Case 1:22-cv-01197-DAD-SCR Document 40 Filed 07/13/23 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

looked upon with disfavor and may be denied absent a showing of good cause for the delay in 

seeking an extension. The parties are also advised that if such a request is made after a deadline, 

the party seeking the nunc pro tunc extension must show additional good cause as to why the 

matter was filed late. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The parties SHALL FILE dispositional documents no later than July 20, 2023. 

2. Failure to comply with the Court’s order will result in the imposition of sanctions, 

including monetary sanctions against all parties and their attorneys of record, as 

well as dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01197-DAD-SCR Document 40 Filed 07/13/23 Page 3 of 3