The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
This case was filed on April 4, 2011. (Dkt. No. 1.) On November 8, 2011, United States District Judge John A. Mendez issued a Related Case Order that, in part, reassigned this pro se matter to the undersigned in accordance with Eastern District Local Rule 302(c)(21). (Dkt. No. 17.)
On June 11, 2012, a Notice of Settlement was filed in this case. (Notice of Settlement, Dkt. No. 31.) The Notice of Settlement represented that the parties had agreed to a settlement and intended to present their settlement terms to the bankruptcy court for approval. (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, the undersigned vacated all dates in this action and ordered the parties to file dispositional documents within 60 days of June 12, 2012. (Order, Dkt. No. 32.)
According to the court's docket, however, the parties did not file dispositional documents by June 12, 2012. Instead, on July 31, 2012, real party in interest plaintiff Alan S. Fukushima ("Fukushima") filed a "Notice Re: Motion to Compromise." (Dkt. No. 33.) Therein, Fukushima represented that a "Motion to Compromise, which includes the settlement of this pending action, is set to be heard on September 4, 2012" in the bankruptcy court. (Id. at 1.)
It has now been over four months since the Motion to Compromise was set for hearing in the bankruptcy action. Accordingly, the parties to this action (No. 2:11-cv-00886 JAM KJN PS) shall update this court of the status of settlement of this case, including, but not limited to, the bankruptcy court's determination regarding the Motion to Compromise referenced in Fukushima's filing on July 31, 2012. (Dkt. No. 33.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. On or before February 3, 2013, the parties shall file a joint status report providing an update regarding the status of the bankruptcy matter, the bankruptcy court's determination regarding the Motion to Compromise referenced in Fukushima's filing on July 31, 2012 (Dkt. No. 33), the status of the settlement in this case (No. 2:11-cv-00886 JAM KJN PS), and the anticipated filing date of dispositional documents. All parties are reminded that the "[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." E. Dist. Local Rule 110; see also Local Rule 183(a) ("Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law."); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants."). Failure to timely comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...