Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00977/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00977-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wade Reeves
Plaintiff
Transworld Systems Inc.
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

Wade Reeves, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Transworld Systems Inc.,

Defendant.

No. 1:15-cv-00977-GEB-BAM

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND 

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement” on October 22, 

2015, in which he states: 

this case has been settled in its entirety. 

The Parties anticipate filing a Joint Motion 

for dismissal of this action in its entirety 

with prejudice within 45 days. Plaintiff 

requests that all pending dates and filing 

requirements be vacated and that the Court 

set a deadline on or after December 4, 2015 

for filing a joint dismissal or a motion to 

reopen this matter if settlement is not fully 

consummated.

(Notice of Settlement, ECF No. 13.)

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no 

later than December 7, 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 1:15-cv-00977-GEB-BAM Document 14 Filed 10/29/15 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 

November 9, 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: October 28, 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 1:15-cv-00977-GEB-BAM Document 14 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 2