Brandi Robbins v. Housing Authority of the County of Kern ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDI ROBBINS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01315-CDB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 13 v. TO FILE DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS 14 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE (Doc. 39) COUNTY OF KERN, ET AL., 15 ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO Defendants. REPORT ON STATUS OF 16 DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS 17 Deadline for Defendant’s Filing: 18 Not later than 12:00 p.m., March 31, 2023 19 20 21 On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Notice of Settlement in accordance with 22 Local Rule 160 in which he represented that “a final settlement has been reached between the 23 parties.” (Doc. 35). On March 7, 2023, counsel for both parties executed and filed a stipulation 24 for order extending by three weeks the time for the parties to file dispositional documents. (Doc. 25 37). The Court granted the parties’ request and ordered dispositional documents to be filed no 26 later than March 28, 2023. (Doc. 38) 27 On the deadline to file dispositional documents, Plaintiff’s counsel instead filed a 1 | Plaintiffs counsel represents that he is awaiting receipt of a release from Defendants’ counsel and 2 | to “resolve and finalize any and all statutory liens as well as Defendant(s] to issue funds and/or 3 | any other procedures that may arise.” The “stipulation” is not signed by Defendants. 4 Because the filing is not, in fact, a “stipulation” in which both parties seek the relief 5 | sought, and because the Court cannot surmise from the reasons set forth in the filing when the 6 | parties anticipate filing dispositional documents, the Court concludes Plaintiff has failed to 7 || demonstrate good cause for a further extension of time. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for a 8 | further extension is HEREBY DENIED and the parties are in default of the Court’s order on their 9 | earlier request to set March 28, 2023, as the deadline for filing dispositional document. 10 In light of the parties’ default, and as it appears from Plaintiff's filing that dispositional 11 | documents are delayed pending actions to be taken by Defendants, the Court HEREBY ORDERS 12 | Defendants to file not later than 12:00 p.m., March 31, 2023, a report in which he provides (1) a 13 | status report on any impediments to expeditiously filing dispositional documents, and (2) a 14 | reasonable deadline by which to file dispositional documents. 15 The Court notes that Plaintiff's suggestion that a stipulated dismissal is being delayed 16 || pending Defendants’ issuance of funds “and/or any other procedures that may arise” (Doc. 39) 17 | does not constitute good cause for an extension under Local Rule 160(b). Since it is clear from 18 | the parties’ filings that they have settled their respective claims, the claims are subject to 19 | dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 20 | 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 21 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ** | Dated: _ March 29, 2023 | Wr bo 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28