Bath v. Millennium Engineering and Integration Co.

Opinion

1 s 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ANYA BATH, Case No. 1:22-cv-01298-ADA-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR PARTIES TO FILE 13 v. DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS AS MODIFIED 14 MILLENNIUM ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION CO., et al. (Doc. 41) 15 16 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 17

18 On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff Anya Bath (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Vertex Aerospace LLC

19 filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, noting a settlement between the two parties had 20 been reached. (Doc. 35). On July 19, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants Millennium Engineering and 21 Integration Co. and Linda Soden filed a notice of settlement of the entire case. (Doc. 39). The 22 following day, the Court ordered the parties to file dispositional documents within 21 days pursuant to 23 Local Rule 160(b). 24 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request for extension of time to file 25 dispositional documents. (Doc. 41). In the stipulation, the parties represent Plaintiff’s counsel has 26 been limited in her time and ability to finalize the terms of the settlement due to family circumstances. 27 Id. at 2. The parties have reached a settlement agreement but “require additional time to perform their 28 various obligations under the settlement agreement before the case can be dismissed.” Id. 1 The Court acknowledges the unforeseen family circumstances referenced in the parties’ 2 || stipulation warrant a brief extension of time. However, the stipulation does not present good cause fc 3 || 32 additional days. The act of “obtaining signatures” may require some additional time; however, the 4 || parties’ apparent intention to delay dismissing the case to gain “additional time to perform their 5 || various obligations under the settlement agreement” (Doc. 41 p.2) is improper. “The normal remedy 6 || for a failure to abide by a settlement of federal litigation is a suit on the settlement contract. Such a 7 || claim arises under state law and must proceed in state court” unless the basis for federal jurisdiction 8 || was diversity. Kay v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 547 F.3d 736, 737 (7th Cir. 2008). In other 9 || words, a federal question claim (as presented in this case) is “extinguished by the settlement and 10 || converted ... into a claim under a contract.” Id. at 739. 11 Since it is clear from the pleadings that the parties have settled their respective claims, the 12 || claims are subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) even though the partie 13 || have not yet entered a stipulated dismissal. This dismissal order could issue since “literal compliance 14 || with the stipulation requirement has not been required where the agreement of all parties 1s apparent.’ 15 || Garber v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 570 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal citation and 16 || quotations omitted). Accord, Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 17 Nevertheless, the Court declines to order dismissal at this juncture as it is apparent the parties 18 || have worked diligently to reach a negotiated resolution of their claims and require a brief time to sigtr 19 || their agreement. 20 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the parties are granted 14 additional 21 || days and shall file dispositional documents no later than August 25, 2023. 22 ||1T IS SO ORDERED. 23 aarD Rr Dated: _ August 11, 2023 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28