# Sanchez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

> District Court, E.D. California · February 8, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10059077

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** February 8, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10059077

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LILLIANA SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-01169-NODJ-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION EXTENDING
TIME FOR PARTIES TO FILE
13 v. DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS AS
MODIFIED
14 EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC, et al., (Doc. 24)
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff Lillian Sanchez filed a notice of settlement of her claims
19 against Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC. (Doc. 18). On January 17, 2024, the Court
20 directed the parties to file dispositional documents by no later than February 5, 2024, or before that
21 date, show cause to extend the time for filing dispositional documents pursuant to Local Rule
22 160(b). (Doc. 20).
23 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation for order extending their time to file
24 dispositional documents by approximately 60 days. (Doc. 24). The parties represent that good
25 cause exists for the extension because they “are continuing to work on carrying out the terms of the
26 settlement between the parties. These terms have not yet been completed, despite the Parties’
27 continued efforts in this regard.” Id. at 2.
The parties’ apparent desire and intention to delay filing dispositional documents until after
1 | they have completed performance of terms pursuant to their settlement agreement does not
2 | constitute good cause for an extension. That is because, generally, a federal question claim as was
3 | presented in this case is “extinguished by the settlement and converted ... into a claim under a
4 | contract,” a breach of which the parties should pursue in state court. See Kay v. Board of Educ. of
5 || City of Chicago, 547 F.3d 736, 737, 739 (7th Cir. 2008).
6 Since it is clear from the pleadings that the parties have settled their respective claims, the
7 | claims are subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) even though the
8 || parties have not yet entered a stipulated dismissal. This dismissal order could issue since “literal
9 | compliance with the stipulation requirement has not been required where the agreement of all
10 | parties is apparent.” Garber v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 570 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
11 | Cnternal citation and quotations omitted). Accord, Eitel vy. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th
12 | Cir. 1986).
13 The Court declines to recommend dismissal at this juncture as it is apparent the parties have
14 | worked diligently to reach a negotiated resolution. Instead, the Court will grant the parties 14 days
15 | to meet and confer prior to filing an appropriate stipulation for dismissal — no further extensions
16 | will be granted absent good cause unrelated to the parties’ performance under the settlement
17 || agreement.
18 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file dispositional
19 || documents no later than February 22, 2024.
20 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED.
* | Dated: _February 8, 2024 | Wr Pr
22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10059077. Public record. Not legal advice.