Anand

Anand v. California Department of Developmental Services

Good Law
626 F. Supp. 2d 1061·2009 WL 1578406·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50462
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 2, 2009CIV.S-04-1575 LKK/GGHCalifornia3,248 words

Opinion

Opinion

Karlton, J.

ORDER

Plaintiff was a psychiatrist employed by defendant California Department of Developmental Services. In September 2008, the parties, through their respective attorneys, notified the court that they had reached a settlement in the case. In the instant motion, defendants move to enforce the terms of the settlement, which they contend plaintiff has repudiated. The court resolves the motion on the papers and after oral argument.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this suit in propria persona in August 2004. Shortly thereafter, she obtained Lawrence King as counsel. Due to several delays in the parties’ completion of discovery, the deadlines in the case were extended several times. In April 2007, defendants moved for summary judgment. In June 2007, the parties through counsel filed a notice of settlement. A few months later, the parties notified the court that the case had not settled and jointly requested a status conference to set a new pretrial schedule. A scheduling conference was held in January 2008 and a new scheduling order was issued.

In September 2008, defendants moved again for summary judgment. Less than a week later, the parties notified the court of having settled. It…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.