Solorio v. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 PRISCILLA SOLORIO, on behalf of herself and Case No. 1:20-cv-01051-JLT-CDB all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PARTIES Plaintiffs, TO FILE DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS 13 v. (Doc. 85) 14 ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. FIVE-DAY DEADLINE 15 and DOES 1-100, 16 Defendants. 17

18 On or around June 22, 2020, Plaintiffs Priscilla Solorio and Mariano Diaz (“Plaintiffs”)

19 commenced a putative class action against Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County of 20 Kern. (Doc. 1). The action was removed to federal court by Defendant ABC Phones of North 21 Carolina, Inc. (“ABC Phones”), on July 30, 2020. Id. In their complaint, Plaintiffs (as former 22 employees of Defendant ABC Phones) assert numerous wage and compensation claims under the 23 California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code. 24 On June 10, 2021, the Court granted Defendant ABC Phones’ motion to compel arbitration of 25 Plaintiffs’ individual claims and stayed the case pending completion of arbitration. (Doc. 17). 26 Defendant ABC Phones thereafter filed periodic status reports updating the Court about progress of 27 the arbitration. In their joint status report filed June 6, 2023, the parties represented that they 28 voluntarily vacated the pending arbitration because they had “agreed to an individual settlement of this 1 matter,” and further represented they expected to reach a fully executed settlement agreement by the 2 end of the month. (Doc. 31). On June 20, 2023, the Court ordered the parties to file a notice of 3 settlement to include a timeline for filing dispositional documents. (Doc. 32). 4 On August 7, 2023, the parties filed a notice of settlement in which they confirmed executing a 5 settlement agreement on August 4, 2023, and further represented they anticipated filing a stipulation of 6 dismissal within 21 days. (Doc. 33). The Court ordered the parties to file dispositional documents or 7 to show cause why an extension of time was warranted no later than August 28, 2023. (Doc. 34) 8 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation seeking a 14-day extension of the time 9 within which to file dispositional documents. (Doc. 85). The parties assert good cause for an 10 extension exists because their settlement agreement provides that the filing of a stipulated dismissal is 11 conditioned upon receipt of the settlement funds, which has yet to occur. 12 Since it is clear from the pleadings that the parties have settled their respective claims, the 13 claims are subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) even though the parties 14 have not yet entered a stipulated dismissal. This dismissal order could issue since “literal compliance 15 with the stipulation requirement has not been required where the agreement of all parties is apparent.” 16 Garber v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 570 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal citation and 17 quotations omitted). Accord, Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 18 Awaiting disbursement of settlement funds is not an appropriate basis for delaying disposition 19 of a federal lawsuit that the parties have settled by agreement. That is because in the case of an 20 alleged breach, the parties have recourse through a suit on the settlement contract. 21 The Court declines to order dismissal at this juncture as it is apparent the parties have worked 22 diligently to reach a negotiated resolution of their claims. Accordingly, the Court will grant the parties 23 five (5) days to file an appropriate stipulation for dismissal. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 27 28 1 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the parties shall file dispositional 2 || documents within five (5) days of entry of this Order. Dated: _ August 29, 2023 | V Vv KD i 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28