# Mazzei v. GEO Secure Services, LLC > District Court, E.D. California · November 7, 2024 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10733467 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** November 7, 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/10733467 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS MAZZEI, Case No. 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PARTIES’ 13 v. STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE DEADLINE TO FILE 14 GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, et al., DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS 15 Defendant. (Doc. 43) 16 7-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Background 19 On October 18, 2024, the parties filed a notice that they had reached a settlement of 20 Plaintiff’s individual claims and that “a formal settlement agreement is being circulated for review 21 and signatures.” (Doc. 41 at 2). The parties also reported their intention to file a stipulated 22 dismissal “[o]nce the specified terms in the agreement are performed.” Id. The Court ordered the 23 parties to file dispositional documents within 21 days. (Doc. 42). 24 Pending before the Court is the parties’ “joint status report” in which they represent “the 25 formal settlement agreement is still being circulated for review and signatures” and request an 26 additional 60 days within which to file dispositional documents. (Doc. 43 at 2). 27 Discussion 28 Good cause does not warrant granting a two-month extension of the deadline to file 1 dispositional documents to facilitate the signing of a settlement agreement that, according to the 2 parties, was “circulated for review and signatures” three or more weeks ago. See (Doc. 41). 3 Moreover, good cause does not support delaying any further the filing of dispositional 4 documents until after performance of the terms of the settlement agreement is complete. That is 5 because this case was removed to federal court based on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) 6 and the removing Defendants’ representation that the amount in controversy of the putative class 7 action exceeds $5,000,000. See (Doc. 1). With the parties’ report now that they have settled only 8 Plaintiff’s individual claims and intend to dismiss all other claims, this Court in all likelihood lacks 9 jurisdiction over the action. 10 Under these circumstances, the Court declines the parties’ unstated but implied invitation 11 for the Court to keep this case open while they perform the terms of their settlement agreement 12 (e.g., Kay v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 547 F.3d 736, 737 (7th Cir. 2008) (“The normal 13 remedy for a failure to abide by a settlement of federal litigation is a suit on the settlement contract. 14 Such a claim arises under state law and must proceed in state court”)) because the parties have not 15 shown that exercising jurisdiction over the parties’ settlement agreement is “essential to the conduct 16 of federal-court business.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994). 17 Since it is clear from the parties’ filings that they have settled their respective claims, the 18 claims are subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) even though the 19 parties have not complied with this Court’s order to file dispositional documents. This dismissal 20 order could issue since “literal compliance with the stipulation requirement has not been required 21 where the agreement of all parties is apparent.” Garber v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 570 F.3d 22 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Accord, Eitel v. McCool, 23 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that “[t]he court reasonably concluded that the 24 parties had the requisite mutual intent to dismiss the action with prejudice” when the court “f[ound] 25 that the parties’ ... representations to the court agreeing to a dismissal with prejudice constituted a 26 voluntary stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii)”). 27 However, dismissal at this juncture is not appropriate as it is apparent from the parties’ 28 pleadings that they have worked diligently to reach a negotiated resolution. Instead, the Court will 1 | grant the parties an additional seven (7) days to meet and confer prior to filing an appropriate 2 | stipulation for dismissal. 3 | Conclusion and Order 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal 5 | pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) within seven (7) days of entry of this order. 6 Failure to timely comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions. 7 | ITIS ORDERED. Dated: _ November 7, 2024 | Ww VL D R~ 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10733467. Public record. Not legal advice.