David Arthur Deponte v. Stohl, Stern, J. Saucedo, K. Sudano, M. Dobe, Gunsaga

E.D. California

David Arthur Deponte v. Stohl, Stern, J. Saucedo, K. Sudano, M. Dobe, Gunsaga

DecidedOctober 10, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-00695

StatusUnknown

This text of David Arthur Deponte v. Stohl, Stern, J. Saucedo, K. Sudano, M. Dobe, Gunsaga (David Arthur Deponte v. Stohl, Stern, J. Saucedo, K. Sudano, M. Dobe, Gunsaga) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David Arthur Deponte v. Stohl, Stern, J. Saucedo, K. Sudano, M. Dobe, Gunsaga, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ARTHUR DEPONTE, Case No. 1:24-cv-00695-KES-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 13 v. ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 STOHL, STERN, J. SAUCEDO, K. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SUDANO, M. DOBE, GUNSAGA, SETTLEMENT AS PREMATURE OR IN 15 THE ALTERNATIVE AS MOOT Defendant. 16 (Doc. Nos. 68, 70) 17 18 On July 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to enforce the global settlement 19 agreement he reached with the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) in this action. 20 (Doc. No. 68). Plaintiff claims he has not received the settlement payment of $2,500 as agreed by 21 the parties and requests that the court enforce the terms of the agreement. (Id. at 1). 22 On September 5, 2025, the Court entered a Minute Order directing Defendants to respond 23 to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No 69). Defendants filed their response to Plaintiff’s motion to 24 enforce settlement on September 16, 2025. (Doc. No. 70). Therein, Defendants ask the court to 25 take judicial notice of the opposition Defendant’s filed in plaintiff’s companion case, DePonte v. 26 Bowman, No. 2:24-cv-01262-DJC-CSK (E.D Cal. July 9, 2025) (Doc. No. 85), which addressed a 27 global settlement of both cases. (Doc. No. 70 at 2). Plaintiff did not file a reply to the 28 Defendants’ opposition and the time do so has expired. Local Rule 230(l). 1 Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of facts that are “not 2 subject to reasonable dispute” because they are either “generally known within the trial court's 3 territorial jurisdiction,” or they “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 4 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). “[C]ourt filings and other 5 matters of public record” are properly judicially noticed. Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, 6 Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir.2006); see also Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 7 1385, 1388, fn.9 (9th Cir. 1987). Additionally, courts generally judicially notice other court 8 proceedings “if those proceedings have a direct relation to the matters at issue.” United States ex. 9 Rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Counsel v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) 10 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 11 2011). The Court finds it proper to take judicial notice of Defendant’s opposition filed in 12 DePonte v. Bowman, No. 2:24-cv-01262-DJC-CSK (E.D Cal. July 9, 2025) (ECF No. 85) and 13 will consider it as Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement filed on July 3, 14 2025. 15 In their response, Defendants cite to the terms of the settlement agreement terms and point 16 out the deadline for CDCR to pay the agreed on settlement amount is September 28, 2025, 180 17 days after Plaintiff had delivered the signed settlement agreement to the Defendants. (Doc. No. 18 70 Ex. A at 1-2). Defendants point out that because Plaintiff filed his motion to enforce 19 settlement on July 3, 2025 and the settlement payment was not due until September 28, 2025, 20 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion is premature. The Court agrees. 21 Further, on October 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a subsequent motion to enforce settlement. 22 (Doc. No. 71).1 Plaintiff’s second-filed motion moots his earlier filed motion. Thus, in the 23 alternative, Plaintiff’s earlier filed motion is moot. 24 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 25 1. Defendants’ request for judicial notice is (Doc. No. 70) GRANTED. 26 2. Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement agreement (Doc. No. 51) is DENIED without 27

28 1 Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s second-filed motion is not yet ripe. 1 prejudiced as premature, or in the alternative is MOOTED by Plaintiff's second-filed 2 motion. 3 3. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's second-filed motion (Doc. No. 71) no 4 later than October 22, 2025. 5 4. Plaintiffs reply, if any, is due no later than November 5, 2025. 6 | Dated: _ October 10, 2025 Wiha Th. Doareh Zacks 8 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ARTHUR DEPONTE, Case No. 1:24-cv-00695-KES-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 13 v. ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 STOHL, STERN, J. SAUCEDO, K. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SUDANO, M. DOBE, GUNSAGA, SETTLEMENT AS PREMATURE OR IN 15 THE ALTERNATIVE AS MOOT Defendant. 16 (Doc. Nos. 68, 70) 17 18 On July 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to enforce the global settlement 19 agreement he reached with the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) in this action. 20 (Doc. No. 68). Plaintiff claims he has not received the settlement payment of $2,500 as agreed by 21 the parties and requests that the court enforce the terms of the agreement. (Id. at 1). 22 On September 5, 2025, the Court entered a Minute Order directing Defendants to respond 23 to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No 69). Defendants filed their response to Plaintiff’s motion to 24 enforce settlement on September 16, 2025. (Doc. No. 70). Therein, Defendants ask the court to 25 take judicial notice of the opposition Defendant’s filed in plaintiff’s companion case, DePonte v. 26 Bowman, No. 2:24-cv-01262-DJC-CSK (E.D Cal. July 9, 2025) (Doc. No. 85), which addressed a 27 global settlement of both cases. (Doc. No. 70 at 2). Plaintiff did not file a reply to the 28 Defendants’ opposition and the time do so has expired. Local Rule 230(l). 1 Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of facts that are “not 2 subject to reasonable dispute” because they are either “generally known within the trial court's 3 territorial jurisdiction,” or they “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 4 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). “[C]ourt filings and other 5 matters of public record” are properly judicially noticed. Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, 6 Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir.2006); see also Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 7 1385, 1388, fn.9 (9th Cir. 1987). Additionally, courts generally judicially notice other court 8 proceedings “if those proceedings have a direct relation to the matters at issue.” United States ex. 9 Rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Counsel v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) 10 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 11 2011). The Court finds it proper to take judicial notice of Defendant’s opposition filed in 12 DePonte v. Bowman, No. 2:24-cv-01262-DJC-CSK (E.D Cal. July 9, 2025) (ECF No. 85) and 13 will consider it as Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement filed on July 3, 14 2025. 15 In their response, Defendants cite to the terms of the settlement agreement terms and point 16 out the deadline for CDCR to pay the agreed on settlement amount is September 28, 2025, 180 17 days after Plaintiff had delivered the signed settlement agreement to the Defendants. (Doc. No. 18 70 Ex. A at 1-2). Defendants point out that because Plaintiff filed his motion to enforce 19 settlement on July 3, 2025 and the settlement payment was not due until September 28, 2025, 20 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion is premature. The Court agrees. 21 Further, on October 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a subsequent motion to enforce settlement. 22 (Doc. No. 71).1 Plaintiff’s second-filed motion moots his earlier filed motion. Thus, in the 23 alternative, Plaintiff’s earlier filed motion is moot. 24 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 25 1. Defendants’ request for judicial notice is (Doc. No. 70) GRANTED. 26 2. Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement agreement (Doc. No. 51) is DENIED without 27

28 1 Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s second-filed motion is not yet ripe. 1 prejudiced as premature, or in the alternative is MOOTED by Plaintiff's second-filed 2 motion. 3 3. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's second-filed motion (Doc. No. 71) no 4 later than October 22, 2025. 5 4. Plaintiffs reply, if any, is due no later than November 5, 2025. 6 | Dated: _ October 10, 2025 Wiha Th. Doareh Zacks 8 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

David Arthur Deponte v. Stohl, Stern, J. Saucedo, K. Sudano, M. Dobe, Gunsaga, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-arthur-deponte-v-stohl-stern-j-saucedo-k-sudano-m-dobe-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack