Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02758/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02758-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nathan Burnette
Defendant
County of Sacramento
Defendant
Estate of Lamont Harmon
Plaintiff
H. H.
Plaintiff
Annie Harmon
Plaintiff
Margaret Hooper
Plaintiff
Scott Jones
Defendant
Ricardo Martin
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANNIE HARMON, individually and as 

joint successor-in-interest to Decedent 

LAMONT HARMON; MARGARET 

HOOPER, individually and as joint 

successor-in-interest to Decedent 

LAMONT HARMON; H.H., a minor, 

individually and as a joint successor-in 

interest to Decedent LAMONT 

HARMON,through her Guardian Ad 

Litem, MARGARET HOOPER; THE 

ESTATE OF LAMONT HARMON, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SCOTT 

JONES, in his official capacity as 

SHERIFF for the SACRAMENTO 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; 

NATHAN BURNETTE, individually; 

RICARDO MARTIN, individually; and 

DOES 1-50, inclusive, individually, jointly 

and severally, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2758-TLN-AC 

ORDER RE SETTLEMENT & DISPOSITION 

 

The case was before the court for a settlement conference conducted on August 11, 2016. 

At that conference, the parties made substantial progress towards a settlement and a further 

conference was ordered. The parties were instructed to confer as to the date for that further 

Case 2:12-cv-02758-TLN-AC Document 53 Filed 09/09/16 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

settlement conference. However, on September 7, 2016, the parties informed the court that they 

have reached a settlement in principle and the additional conference is no longer necessary. The 

proposed settlement must be presented to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for final 

approval. Accordingly, it is ordered that dispositional documents are to be filed not later than 

ninety (90) days from the date of this order. 

 All hearing dates heretofore set in this matter are VACATED. 

 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE 

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL OR PARTIES WHO 

CONTRIBUTED TO THE VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 8, 2016. 

Case 2:12-cv-02758-TLN-AC Document 53 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 2