(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)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AS MOOT
(Doc. No. 71)
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second1 motion seeking to enforce payment in
connection with a global settlement agreement he reached with the California Department of
Corrections (“CDCR”) in this action and his companion case, DePonte v. Bowman, Case No.
2:24-cv-01262-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2025). (Doc. No. 71). Plaintiff claims that as of the
date he signed the motion –September 28, 2025—he has not received the settlement payment as
agreed by the parties at a settlement conference and requests that the court enforce the terms of
the settlement agreement and assess late penalties. (Id. at 2-3).
After being granted an extension of time, Defendants filed a status report and opposition
to Plaintiff’s motion on November 21, 2025. (Doc. No. 76). Defendants attach the Declaration of
Ari Sheps, Deputy Attorney General. Deputy Attorney General Sheps attests that “CDCR’s
1 The Court found Plaintiff’s first motion to enforce the settlement agreement filed on July 3, 2025, was
prematurely filed. (Doc. No. 72).
Case 1:24-cv-00695-KES-HBK Document 78 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 3

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
accounting office” confirmed that “the settlement funds had been processed on October 15, 2025,
and paid on October 22, 2025.” (Id. at 4, ¶ 3). Defendants attach a copy of the payment
processing packet as an exhibit. (Id. at 5-16, Exhibit A).
On November 26, 2025, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file either a reply
to Defendants’ opposition or a request to withdraw his motion as moot by December 15, 2025.
(Doc. No. 77 at 3). The Court informed Plaintiff that failure to file either a reply or a request to
withdraw his motion would result in the Court deeming Defendants’ representation that the
settlement has been paid as uncontested and issuing Findings and Recommendations that the
district court deny Plaintiff’s motion as moot. (Id. at 3 ¶ 2). Plaintiff has neither filed a reply to
Defendants’ opposition nor a request to withdraw his motion, and the deadline to do so has since
expired. (See Docket).
ACCORDINGLY, it is RECOMMENDED:
That the district court deny Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement agreement (Doc. No.
71) as MOOT.2
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this
case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after being served with
a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the
Court. Id.; Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages. The Court will
not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any
exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page
number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in
excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when
2 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 that the court agreed to retain jurisdiction
for purposes of enforcing the settlement. (Id.). The Court need not determine whether it retained
jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement due to the Court’s finding that the motion is moot.
Case 1:24-cv-00695-KES-HBK Document 78 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 3

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
3
reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s
failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on
appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).
Dated: December 29, 2025
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00695-KES-HBK Document 78 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 3