The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00594-KES-CDB
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO
13 v. CONTINUE DEADLINE TO FILE
DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS
14 ALCO IRON & METAL COMPANY,
(Doc. 25)
15 Defendant.
30-Day Deadline
16
17
18 On March 13, 2024, Plaintiffs Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. (“Safety-Kleen”) and Clean
19 Harbors Buttonwillow, LLC (“Clean Harbors”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action with
20 the filing of a complaint against Defendant Alco Iron & Metal Company (“Defendant) in the
21 Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, entitled Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. and
22 Clean Harbors Buttonwillow, LLC v. Alco Iron & Metal Company, Case No. BCV-24-100887.
23 (Doc. 1). Defendant removed the action to this Court on May 16, 2024. (Id.). On June 27, 2024,
24 Defendant filed its answer. (Doc. 15).
25 Following the original scheduling and subsequent extension of case management dates (see
26 Docs. 18, 24), on June 30, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement in which they represent that
27 the parties have resolved the entire action by settlement agreement. (Doc. 25). Plaintiffs express
28 an intention to delay the filing of dispositional documents until the “exchange of consideration” is
1 | complete under the parties’ settlement agreement. (d.) Further, Plaintiffs request the Court
2 | schedule a hearing no sooner than ten days following the parties’ anticipated completion of their
3 | exchange of consideration (October 3, 2025). Ud.)
4 In this District, parties are required to file dispositional documents no later than 21 days
5 | after the filing of a notice of settlement “absent good cause.” See Local Rule 160. Here, the
6 || parties’ apparent desire and intention to delay filing dispositional documents until after they have
7 | completed performance of terms pursuant to their settlement agreement does not constitute good
8 | cause for an extension. That is because, generally, a federal question claim as was presented in
9 | this case is “extinguished by the settlement and converted ... into a claim under a contract,” a
10 || breach of which the parties should pursue in state court. See Kay v. Board of Educ. of City of
11 | Chicago, 547 F.3d 736, 737, 739 (7th Cir. 2008).
12 In short, as the parties have resolved their claims pursuant to an enforceable contract, the
13 | Court declines to maintain this case in active status to supervise the parties’ performance of their
14 | undisclosed, private settlement agreement because they have not shown that exercising jurisdiction
15 | over the performance of their agreement is “essential to the conduct of federal-court business.”
16 | Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994).
17 The Court will vacate all remaining case management dates and related filing requirements
18 | and grant a brief extension of the 21-day deadline for the filing of dispositional documents.
19 Conclusion and Order
20 For the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file
21 | dispositional documents no later than July 30, 2025.
22 All remaining case management dates and related filing requirements are VACATED.
23 | IT IS SO ORDERED.
1 Dated: _ July 1, 2025 | hr
25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28