Bath v. Millennium Engineering and Integration Co.

Opinion

s

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR PARTIES TO FILE v. DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS AS MODIFIED INTEGRATION CO., et al. (Doc. 41) Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE

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

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