From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. Khalib

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Apr 30, 2024
1:20-cv-01567-KES-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2024)

Opinion

1:20-cv-01567-KES-SKO (PC)

04-30-2024

CORNEL JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. KHALIB, et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS REGARDING SETTLEMENT

SHEILA K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

A settlement conference was held in this matter before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on September 26, 2023. (See Doc. 48.) The parties reached a settlement, the terms and conditions were set forth on the record, and dispositional documents were ordered to be filed within 60 days. (Id.)

On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice of Rejection of Settlement Agreement as Submitted by Defendants,” purporting to rescind the settlement agreement. (Doc. 41.) Defendants replied to Plaintiff's filing the following day. (Doc. 42.)

On January 9, 2024, Judge Grosjean issued Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff's Motion to Rescind the Settlement Agreement. (Doc. 50.) On February 27, 2024, Chief Judge Kimberly J. Mueller issued an Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff's Motion to Rescind the Settlement Agreement. (Doc. 54.) Judge Mueller's order stated: “The settlement is effective on this date and all deadlines in the agreement shall run from the date of this order.” (Id. at 2.)

On that date, this action was assigned to the “NODJ” docket. It was subsequently reassigned to District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on March 14, 2024.

II. DISCUSSION AND ORDER

Immediately following the settlement conference of September 26, 2023, Judge Grosjean ordered that “dispositional documents be filed in 60 days.” (Doc. 48 at 5.) Although subsequent proceedings have delayed the settlement in this action, Judge Mueller's February 27, 2024, Order Adopting the Findings and Recommendations effectively reimposed the deadline for the filing of dispositional documents. (Doc. 54 at 2.) Thus, dispositional documents were to be filed no later than April 29, 2024. Plaintiff's motion to rescind the settlement agreement was denied and more than 60 days have passed, but the dispositional documents remain outstanding.

2/27/2024 + 60 days = 4/27/2024. Because April 27, 2024, fell on a Saturday, the documents were due no later than Monday, April 29, 2024.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants SHALL show cause in writing, within seven (7) days of the date of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed the parties' failure to comply with Judge Grosjean's order concerning the filing of dispositional documents and Judge Mueller's February 27, 2024, order reimposing deadlines following settlement of this action. Alternatively, Defendants may file the dispositional documents within that same period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jackson v. Khalib

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Apr 30, 2024
1:20-cv-01567-KES-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2024)
Case details for

Jackson v. Khalib

Case Details

Full title:CORNEL JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. KHALIB, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Apr 30, 2024

Citations

1:20-cv-01567-KES-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2024)

Citing Cases

Jackson v. Wollet

The magistrate judge observed that “Plaintiff received a settlement ten times the filing fee on March 21,…

Jackson v. Wollet

Specifically, Plaintiff received a settlement ten times the filing fee on March 21, 2024, less than two…