Cornejo v. Minglana
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-05383
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Cornejo v. Minglana, Judge White vacated settlement proceedings, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, lifted the stay, and set briefing deadlines.
Efrain Cornejo and the defendants, including Sergeant V. Minglana. The defendants may re-file a dispositive motion, while the plaintiff must meet the stated filing, service, address-update, and prosecution requirements.
What happened
In Cornejo v. Minglana, the court granted the defendants’ motion to vacate the settlement proceedings. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice because it violated an existing stay.
The court lifted the stay and allowed the defendants to file a new motion to dismiss or another motion ending the case by August 24, 2024. It set deadlines for the plaintiff’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, and stated that no hearing would occur unless later ordered.
Judge Jeffrey S. White also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reminded the plaintiff of his duties to communicate with the defendants, prosecute the case, update his address, and follow court orders.
The detailed version
- Cornejo v. Minglana · No. 4:23-cv-05383
- Jeffrey White
- July 9, 2024
What the Court Decided
The court granted the defendants’ motion to vacate the settlement proceedings. It denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice because filing that motion violated the existing stay. The court lifted the stay.
Next Steps
The defendants were permitted to re-file a motion to dismiss or another dispositive motion—meaning a motion that could resolve the case—by August 24, 2024. The plaintiff’s opposition, if any, was due September 9, 2024, and the defendants’ reply was due September 23, 2024. The motion would be considered submitted on the reply deadline, and no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one.
The court stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It also directed the plaintiff to serve communications to the court on the defendant or, once designated, the defendants’ counsel. The court reminded the plaintiff that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders. Failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claims. It addressed settlement proceedings, the stay, and the timing and handling of a future dispositive motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.