The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JAMES GAEFCKE, Case No. 1:23-cv-01470-NODJ-CDB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION EXTENDING
TIME FOR PARTIES TO FILE
13 v. DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS AS
MODIFIED
14 FLATIRON WEST, INC., et al.
(Doc. 19)
15 Defendants.
16
17 On November 16, 2023, Defendant Flatiron West, Inc. filed a notice of settlement executed
18 by all appearing parties. (Doc. 16). The following day, the Court vacated all case management
19 dates and directed the parties to file dispositional documents by no later than December 18, 2023,
20 or, on or before that date, show cause to extend the time for filing dispositional documents pursuant
21 to Local Rule 160(b). (Doc. 17).
22 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation for order extending their time to file
23 dispositional documents by approximately 45 days. (Doc. 19). The parties represent they have
24 finalized their settlement agreement but due to unidentified and “unforeseen circumstances, the
25 [p]arties took longer than anticipated to finalize the agreement.” Id. at 3. The parties further
26 represent, “[g]ood cause exists for the proposed extension of this deadline because Plaintiff and
27 Defendants both require additional time in order to fulfill their obligations to the settlement
1 The parties’ apparent desire and intention to delay filing dispositional documents until after
2 | they “fulfill their obligations to the settlement agreement” does not constitute good cause for an
3 | extension. That is because, generally, a federal question claim as was presented in this case is
4 | “extinguished by the settlement and converted ... into a claim under a contract,” a breach of which
5 | the parties should pursue in state court. See Kay v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 547 F.3d
6 | 736, 737, 739 (7th Cir. 2008).
7 Since it is clear from the pleadings that the parties have settled their respective claims, the
8 | claims are subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) even though the
9 | parties have not yet entered a stipulated dismissal. This dismissal order could issue since “literal
10 | compliance with the stipulation requirement has not been required where the agreement of all
11 | parties is apparent.” Garber v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 570 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
12 | Cnternal citation and quotations omitted). Accord, Eitel vy. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th
13 | Cir. 1986).
14 The Court declines to recommend dismissal at this juncture as it is apparent the parties have
15 | worked diligently to reach a negotiated resolution. Instead, the Court will grant the parties 21 days
16 | to meet and confer prior to filing an appropriate stipulation for dismissal — no further extensions
17 | will be granted.
18 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file dispositional
19 | documents no later than January 8, 2024.
20 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ December 19, 2023 | Ww VV KD
22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28