Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Slatnick v. Deutsche Bank AG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 23, 2008

KEVIN SLATNICK AND JOHN SONNENBERG, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC. D/B/A DEUTSCHE BANK ALEX. BROWN; CORNERSTONE STRATEGIC, ADVISORS, LLC; ROGER FULLER; D. MICHAEL BISHOP; CANTLEY & SEDACCA, LLP; EDWARD SEDACCA, ESQ.; CLARION CAPITAL LLC; CF ADVISORS, LLC; DAN BROOKS; AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge

ORDER

By Order entered October 29, 2007, the court required the remaining parties in this action to provide the court with a Joint Status Report on the first day of each calendar month, beginning in November 2007, to inform the court of the progress of their arbitration proceedings. Dkt No. 94. The court had stayed this action on March 15, 2006 in its Order granting defendant Deutsche Bank's motion to compel arbitration. Dkt No. 85.

The parties filed a Joint Status Report on November 2, 2007, the last activity in the case appearing in the docket. Dkt No. 96. In their Report, the parties indicated a continuance of the stay would extend beyond August 2008 to accommodate the delay in obtaining an arbitration hearing date. The court informed the parties such an extension was unacceptably long, as this matter has been pending as an open federal case since its removal from state court on November 15, 2004 and had already been stayed in excess of twenty months. The parties also indicated in their November report they would meet and confer regarding "the possibility of a stipulation dismissing the case from this Court's docket in favor of Arbitration, thus obviating the need for Court oversight," indicating they would inform the court of the results of their discussions "prior to December 1, 2007." Dkt No. 96. The parties have neither complied with the Order requiring monthly joint reports nor presented a Joint Motion For Dismissal, despite telephonic communications from the court to plaintiffs' counsel in November and December 2007, and most recently on January 9, 2008, requesting status updates and receiving counsel's assurances the parties would be submitting a dismissal request.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the parties shall cause to be filed their Joint Motion For Dismissal on or before February 1, 2008. The court will calendar a status hearing , with personal appearances of counsel required, should that deadline pass without a joint communication from the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080123

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.