Bishop v. Ford Motor Company
- Jon Tigar
- 4:19-cv-08254
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bishop v. Ford Motor Company, Judge Tigar continued the conference and ordered an explanation for the parties’ failure to document their reported settlement.
Barbara Bishop, Ford Motor Company, and the other defendants were required to address their failure to comply with the court’s November 23, 2020 order and the possibility of monetary sanctions.
What happened
In Bishop v. Ford Motor Company, the parties notified the court on November 23, 2020, that they had settled. The court ordered them to file either a dismissal agreement or a short explanation by January 8, 2021.
They filed nothing by that deadline. The court therefore continued the case-management conference, which had been set for February 2, to February 16, 2021. The opinion states the original conference date as February 2, 2020, apparently inconsistently with the surrounding dates.
Judge Tigar ordered the parties to file a joint statement by February 9 explaining why they did not follow the earlier order and why monetary sanctions should not be imposed. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Bishop v. Ford Motor Company · No. 4:19-cv-08254
- Jon Tigar
- Feb. 1, 2021
Background
Barbara Bishop sued Ford Motor Company and other defendants. The parties filed a notice of settlement on November 23, 2020. That same day, the court ordered them to file by January 8, 2021, either a stipulation of dismissal—a document formally ending the case—or a one-page joint statement explaining why they could not file one. The court also scheduled a case-management conference and said it would be canceled if the parties timely filed a dismissal stipulation.
Court’s Action
The parties had not filed anything responding to the November 23 order as of February 1, 2021. The court continued the case-management conference to February 16, 2021. The opinion says the conference had been set for February 2, 2020, although that date appears inconsistent with the surrounding dates and the order’s February 1, 2021 date.
The court also required the parties to file a joint statement by February 9, 2021, explaining why they failed to comply with the November order and why monetary sanctions—financial penalties—should not be imposed. The order cited the court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions. Judge Jon S. Tigar did not rule on the underlying claims or enter a dismissal in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.