Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Scott Davenport filed suit against Easy-Go Inc., doing business as Tours4Fun, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case was assigned docket number CV 26-6776 FMO (SSCx) and proceeded before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The underlying claims and defenses are not described in the order, which addresses only the procedural disposition of the case.
On October 19, 2026, counsel for the parties filed a Notice of Settlement (Dkt. 15) advising the court that the action had been settled. The court relied on this representation to dispose of the case without reaching the merits of the underlying claims. The order was entered the same day and the case was terminated on the docket, with the notation 'JS-6' indicating a judgment was entered.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered the action dismissed without costs and without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the inherent authority recognized in Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). The dismissal is conditioned on the right of any party to move to reopen the action upon good cause shown by no later than November 30, 2026, if the settlement is not consummated.
The court explicitly retained full jurisdiction over the action and stated that the order shall not prejudice any party. Failure to move to reopen or seek an extension by the November 30 deadline will be deemed consent to dismissal without prejudice. No ruling was made on the substantive claims or defenses, and the order does not address the merits of the underlying dispute.
The order's conditional dismissal structure means the case is not finally closed until the November 30, 2026 deadline passes without a motion to reopen. If the settlement is consummated, the dismissal becomes final by operation of the deemed-consent provision. If the settlement fails, any party may seek to restore the case to the active docket upon a showing of good cause.
Key Takeaways
- The case was dismissed solely based on the parties' representation of settlement, not on the merits of the underlying claims.
- The court retained jurisdiction to reopen the case if the settlement falls through by November 30, 2026.
- Parties must affirmatively move to reopen or seek an extension by the deadline or the dismissal becomes final by deemed consent.
- The dismissal is without prejudice and without costs, preserving all parties' rights to refile or reopen if necessary.
- The order cites Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Link v. Wabash R.R. Co. as authority for the court's inherent power to manage its docket and enforce settlement-related dismissals.
Why It Matters
This order reflects a routine case management disposition where a federal court dismisses an action without prejudice upon notice of settlement while safeguarding the parties' ability to return to court if the settlement is not finalized. The conditional dismissal with a fixed deadline and deemed-consent provision is a standard mechanism to clear active dockets while protecting litigants' rights.
The order has no precedential weight because it is an unpublished district court order resolving a single case without addressing any substantive legal question. Its significance lies in its illustration of how courts in the Central District of California handle settlement notices and preserve jurisdiction during the settlement-consummation period. No precedent is set on the underlying legal issues, which remain unresolved.