Yadon v. Banana Republic

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 6, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01326
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIOBHAN YADON, Case No. 1:24-cv-01326-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PARTIES’ STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE DEADLINE TO FILE 13 v. DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS

14 BANANA REPUBLIC, (Doc. 15)

15 Defendant. 2-Day Deadline 16 17

18 Plaintiff Siobhan Yadon (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 19 October 29, 2024. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) arising from 20 Defendant Banana Republic’s (“Defendant”) violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 21 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (TCPA). Plaintiff alleges Defendant repeatedly sent text messages to Plaintiff’s 22 cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit business from Plaintiff using an artificial or prerecorded 23 message despite knowing it lacked consent to send such messages to Plaintiff. (Id.). 24 Following a scheduling conference, on January 27, 2025, the Court entered the operative case 25 management order. (Doc. 10). On June 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement and requested 60 26 days within which “to complete the settlement and file the Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice.” 27 (Doc. 12). After entering an order on Plaintiff’s request with an inadvertent error, on July 7, 2025, the 28 Court ordered Plaintiff to file dispositional documents no later than August 5, 2025. (Docs. 14, 15). 1 The Court admonished: “No further extensions of the deadline will be granted to facilitate the parties’ 2 performance of their settlement agreement. See Local Rule 160(b) (requiring good cause to extend the 3 deadline to file dispositional documents). Failure to timely comply with this order may result in the 4 imposition of sanctions, including financial sanctions and dismissal of the action.” 5 Instead of timely filing dispositional documents, on August 5, 2025, the parties filed a jointly 6 executed stipulated request to continue the deadline to August 19, 2025. (Doc. 15). Aside from 7 representing that the continuance is necessary so that they may “complete the settlement” and “complete 8 the resolution of this case,” the parties provide no details as to why dismissal is not warranted today. 9 In this District, parties are required to file dispositional documents no later than 21 days after the 10 filing of a notice of settlement “absent good cause.” See Local Rule 160. The Court granted the parties 11 an initial extension of time to file dispositional documents. (Doc. 14). However, the parties’ apparent 12 desire and intention to delay filing dispositional documents until after they have completed performance 13 of terms pursuant to their settlement agreement does not constitute good cause for any further extension. 14 That is because, generally, a federal question claim as was presented in this case is “extinguished by the 15 settlement and converted ... into a claim under a contract,” a breach of which the parties should pursue 16 in state court. See Kay v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 547 F.3d 736, 737, 739 (7th Cir. 2008). 17 In short, as the parties have resolved their claims pursuant to an enforceable contract, the Court 18 declines to maintain this case in active status to supervise the parties’ performance of their undisclosed, 19 private settlement agreement because they have not shown that exercising jurisdiction over the 20 performance of their agreement is “essential to the conduct of federal-court business.” Kokkonen v. 21 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994). 22 The Court previously admonished the parties no further extensions of the filing deadline would 23 be granted to facilitate performance of their settlement agreement, and separately, that they may be 24 subject to sanctions for failure to timely comply with the Court’s order to file dispositional documents. 25 (Doc. 14). Although it appears the parties neglected to account for these admonishments, the Court will 26 grant a brief extension of the filing deadline but cautions the parties that any further noncompliance with 27 the Court’s orders will result in the imposition of sanctions. 28 /// 1 Conclusion and Order 2 For the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file disposition 3 || documents no later than August 8, 2025. 4 Any failure by the parties to timely comply with this order will result in the □□□□□□□□□□ 5 || sanctions. 6 || IT IS SO ORDERED. "|| pated: _ August 6, 2025 | hwrnrD Pr 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28