The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 BLOOM FRESH INTERNATIONAL Case No. 1:25-cv-01305-JLT-CDB
LIMITED,
12 ORDER ON PARTIES’ REQUEST TO
13 Plaintiff, CONTINUE DEADLINE TO FILE
v. DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS
14
JESSE SOLORIO, et al., (Doc. 35)
15
Defendants.
7-Day Deadline
16
17
18 Plaintiff Bloom Fresh International Limited initiated this action with the filing of a
19 complaint on October 2, 2025. (Doc. 1). On February 2, 2026, the Court granted the stipulated
20 request of Plaintiff and Defendants Jesse Solorio, Del Sol Produce Sales, Inc., and Jesse Solorio
21 & Sons Cold Storage, Inc., for a permanent injunction against those same Defendants and
22 dismissed said Defendants. See (Doc. 28). At the scheduling conference on February 17, 2026,
23 the Court did not schedule the case and, at the request of Plaintiff and remaining Defendants
24 Crescensio A. Mena and Patricio A. Mena, directed the parties to file, no later than April 2, 2026,
25 a notice of settlement or joint report regarding further scheduling of the case. (Doc. 29).
26 After two extensions of time (Docs. 31, 33) and upon order of the Court (Doc. 34) after the
27 parties’ failure to timely make the required filing, the parties filed a notice of settlement (Doc. 35).
28 Therein, the parties express an intention to delay the filing of dispositional documents until the
1 parties “satisfy all settlement conditions” in the next 120 days. The parties represent that good
2 cause exists because the terms of settlement “involve the removal of a vineyard” before the
3 resolution of the action is final. Id.
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 direct the parties to file dispositional documents within seven days. Further, the parties are
19 admonished that, while they may not confer jurisdiction upon the Court to supervise performance
20 under a settlement agreement, they may request that the Court maintain jurisdiction for that
21 purpose. See K.C. ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing
22 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381); Collins v. Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993).
23 Conclusion and Order
24 For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
25 1. The parties shall file dispositional documents no later than June 10, 2026; and
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
] 2. All remaining case management dates and related filing requirements are
2 VACATED.
3 | IT ISSO ORDERED.
* | Dated: _ Sune 3, 2026 | Wr bY
5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28