UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
October 14, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
CARDI M. PRINZI AND LORI J. FRANKZKE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Ware United States District Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REFERRING CASE TO ORDER TO REFER CASE FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE LLOYD FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND EXTEND CASE DEADLINES SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ACCORDINGLY CONTINUING PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
The parties hereby
Presently before the stipulate and agree, subject to this Court's approval, as follows: Court is the parties' Stipulation to refer this case to a magistrate judge for
1. On October 13, 2010, the parties attended a telephonic a settlement conference and to continue the Preliminary ADR conference. The set for October 25, 2010. (Docket Item No. 24.) Based on the parties' Stipulation and ADR's recommendation, have requested that this case be the Court finds referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct a good cause to refer this case to Judge Lloyd for a Settlement Conference. On or before October 18, 2010, the parties shall contact Judge Lloyd's chambers to set settlement conference within the next 90 days. up their conference.
2. The parties further request that this Court extend the October 15, 2010 deadline to file The Court also finds good cause to continue the Preliminary Pretrial Conference from October 25, 2010 to December 20, 2010 at 10 a.m. On or before December 10, 2010, the 23 parties a Joint Preliminary shall file a Joint October 25, 2010 Pre Trial Conference, in order to
The Statement shall include a status update enable the parties to engage in a settlement conference. on the parties' settlement efforts and the parties' proposed trial schedule.
The Court's continuance of the Preliminary Pretrial Conference is not intended to 25 extend any other deadlines. Accordingly, the Case Schedule as set for in the Court's April 15, 2010 Scheduling Order shall remain unchanged. (See Docket Item No. 17.) // In light of this Order, the Court DENIES as moot Defendants' Motion to Appear by 27 Telephone. // (Docket Item No. 25.)
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.