The opinion
1 s
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ANYA BATH, Case No. 1:22-cv-01298-ADA-CDB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION EXTENDING
TIME FOR PARTIES TO FILE
13 v. DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS
AS MODIFIED
14 MILLENNIUM ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION CO., et al. (Doc. 41)
15
16 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE
17
18 On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff Anya Bath (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Vertex Aerospace LLC
19 filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, noting a settlement between the two parties had
20 been reached. (Doc. 35). On July 19, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants Millennium Engineering and
21 Integration Co. and Linda Soden filed a notice of settlement of the entire case. (Doc. 39). The
22 following day, the Court ordered the parties to file dispositional documents within 21 days pursuant to
23 Local Rule 160(b).
24 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request for extension of time to file
25 dispositional documents. (Doc. 41). In the stipulation, the parties represent Plaintiff’s counsel has
26 been limited in her time and ability to finalize the terms of the settlement due to family circumstances.
27 Id. at 2. The parties have reached a settlement agreement but “require additional time to perform their
28 various obligations under the settlement agreement before the case can be dismissed.” Id.
1 The Court acknowledges the unforeseen family circumstances referenced in the parties’
2 || stipulation warrant a brief extension of time. However, the stipulation does not present good cause fc
3 || 32 additional days. The act of “obtaining signatures” may require some additional time; however, the
4 || parties’ apparent intention to delay dismissing the case to gain “additional time to perform their
5 || various obligations under the settlement agreement” (Doc. 41 p.2) is improper. “The normal remedy
6 || for a failure to abide by a settlement of federal litigation is a suit on the settlement contract. Such a
7 || claim arises under state law and must proceed in state court” unless the basis for federal jurisdiction
8 || was diversity. Kay v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 547 F.3d 736, 737 (7th Cir. 2008). In other
9 || words, a federal question claim (as presented in this case) is “extinguished by the settlement and
10 || converted ... into a claim under a contract.” Id. at 739.
11 Since it is clear from the pleadings that the parties have settled their respective claims, the
12 || claims are subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) even though the partie
13 || have not yet entered a stipulated dismissal. This dismissal order could issue since “literal compliance
14 || with the stipulation requirement has not been required where the agreement of all parties 1s apparent.’
15 || Garber v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 570 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal citation and
16 || quotations omitted). Accord, Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986).
17 Nevertheless, the Court declines to order dismissal at this juncture as it is apparent the parties
18 || have worked diligently to reach a negotiated resolution of their claims and require a brief time to sigtr
19 || their agreement.
20 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the parties are granted 14 additional
21 || days and shall file dispositional documents no later than August 25, 2023.
22 ||1T IS SO ORDERED.
23 aarD Rr
Dated: _ August 11, 2023
24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28