IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 5, 2011
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND ) DISPOSITION
Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Settlement" on April 5, 2011, in which she states, "this case has settled[,]" and requests "sixty (60) days . . . to file dispositive documentation." (ECF No. 16.)
Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than June 6, 2011. Failure to respond by this deadline may be construed as consent to dismissal of this action without prejudice, and a dismissal order could be filed. See L.R. 160(b) ("A failure to file dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions.").
Plaintiff also states in its "Notice of Settlement": "This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter until fully resolved." "[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that the court should exercise continuing jurisdiction is not binding on the court." Arata v. Nu Skin Intern., Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996). "A federal court may refuse to exercise continuing jurisdiction even though the parties have agreed to it. Parties cannot confer jurisdiction by stipulation or consent." Collins v. Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 859 (9th Cir. 1993).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.