The Don Chapin Company v. Ral Investment Corporation
- Lee
- 5:24-cv-04419
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In The Don Chapin Company v. Ral Investment Corporation, Judge Lee conditionally dismissed the case without prejudice after the parties reported a settlement.
The Don Chapin Company, Ral Investment Corporation, and the other defendants were affected by the conditional dismissal, administrative closure, canceled deadlines, and settlement-related requirements.
What happened
The Don Chapin Company sued Ral Investment Corporation and other defendants. The parties, through their lawyers, told the court that they had agreed to settle and expected to request dismissal with prejudice by August 29, 2025.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice, canceled all hearings and deadlines, and directed the Clerk to close the case for administrative purposes. The dismissal was conditional because the plaintiff could ask the court to enforce the settlement by August 29, 2025.
Judge Umi K. Lee retained jurisdiction through August 29, 2025. If no enforcement motion was filed by then, the parties were ordered to request dismissal with prejudice.
The detailed version
- The Don Chapin Company v. Ral Investment Corporation · No. 5:24-cv-04419
- Lee
- Mar. 14, 2025
Background
The parties advised the court, through their counsel, that they had agreed to a settlement. They anticipated filing a request for dismissal with prejudice by August 29, 2025.
Court’s action
The court conditionally dismissed the matter without prejudice. It vacated all hearings and deadlines and directed the Clerk to administratively close the case.
The court allowed The Don Chapin Company to file a properly noticed motion to enforce the settlement’s terms and conditions no later than August 29, 2025. If no such motion was filed by that date, the parties were required to file a request for dismissal with prejudice by August 29, 2025. The court retained jurisdiction through August 29, 2025.
Result
Judge Umi K. Lee entered an order of conditional dismissal without prejudice. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims or the settlement’s merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.