(PC) DePonte v. Stohl et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID ARTHUR DEPONTE,
Plaintiff,
v.
STOHL, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:24-cv-00695-KES-HBK (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO
FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS CONSTRUED AS LATE
RESPONSE
(Doc. 79)
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE
On November 26, 2025, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’
Status Report and/or advise whether Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Payment and Late Fees is
moot. (Doc. 77). Therein, the Court advised Plaintiff if he failed to file a response the Court
would deem Plaintiff’s Motion moot. After Plaintiff failed to timely respond, the undersigned
issued Findings and Recommendations on December 29, 2025 (Doc. 78, “F&R”), which
recommended denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Payment and Late Fees (Doc. 71) as moot.
On January 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed Objections to the F&R (Doc. 79) arguing that his Motion to
Enforce Payment and Late Fees is not moot. The Court construes Plaintiff’s Objections as a
belated response to the Court’s November 26, 2025 Order.
Prior to rescinding its F&R or issuing amended findings and recommendations, the Court
finds it appropriate to obtain a response from Defendants regarding whether the Court retained
Case 1:24-cv-00695-KES-HBK Document 80 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
jurisdiction over the settlement agreement1 and whether the settlement agreement contains
provisions for penalties regarding late payments.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s construed belated response to the Court’s
November 26, 2025 Order (Doc. 79), within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order.
Dated: January 12, 2026
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 On March 19, 2025, the parties participated in a settlement conference before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeremy D.
Peterson. (Doc. No. 60). The minutes do not reflect whether the court agreed to retain jurisdiction for purposes of
enforcing the settlement. (Id.).
Case 1:24-cv-00695-KES-HBK Document 80 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 2