Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01540/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01540-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Arreguin
Plaintiff
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
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

MICHAEL ARREGUIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, and DOES 1 to 100,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-01540-GEB-EFB

ORDER 

Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement” on November 

30, 2015, in which he states:

the parties to the above-entitled action 

reached a settlement which disposes of this 

matter in its entirety. The parties are in 

the process of finalizing the settlement 

documents, and anticipate that they will be 

in a position to file a stipulation for 

dismissal of all claims against all parties, 

with prejudice, within the next 30 days.

(Notice of Settlement, ECF No. 12.)

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no 

later than December 30, 2015. Failure to respond by this deadline 

may be construed as consent to dismissal of this action without 

prejudice, and a dismissal order could be filed. See E.D. Cal. 

R. 160(b) (“A failure to file dispositional papers on the date 

prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions.”).

Case 2:15-cv-01540-GEB-EFB Document 13 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Further, the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on 

December 21, 2015, is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on 

February 1, 2016, in the event no dispositional document is 

filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed.1 A joint 

status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the 

status conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2015

 

1 The status conference will remain on calendar, because the mere 

representation that a case has been settled does not justify vacating a 

scheduling proceeding. Cf. Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987)

(indicating that a representation that claims have been settled does not 

necessarily establish the existence of a binding settlement agreement). 

Case 2:15-cv-01540-GEB-EFB Document 13 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 2