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.

C&G Farms v. Lindsay Foods International

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -- FRESNO DIVISION


November 17, 2010

C&G FARMS, ET AL, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
LINDSAY FOODS INTERNATIONAL, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER ON PARTIES' STIPULATED REQUEST FOR A REVISED SCHEDULE

(Docket No. 90)

On May 11, 2010, the parties filed a stipulated request for a revised scheduling order. (Doc. 61.) The dates proposed in the parties' request for a revised schedule were untenable in several respects. For example, the parties requested non-dispositive motion filing and hearing deadlines that fell after the proposed dispositive motion filing and hearing deadlines, the amount of time between the filing deadlines and the hearing deadlines did not provide enough time to properly notice a motion, and the non-dispositive motions were proposed to be heard after the pre-trial conference. In short, the schedule proposed by the parties was completely untenable and reflected a lack of consideration or understanding of a workable schedule.

On May 27, 2010, the Court undertook efforts to revise the schedule in a manner that was actually feasible and granted the parties' request, necessarily ordering deadlines that differed substantially from the parties' requested deadlines. (Doc. 64.)

On November 15, 2010, the parties filed another request for a revised schedule that proposes less than carefully thought out deadlines such as a dispositive motion hearing deadline of April 4, 2011, which is after the proposed pre-trial conference date of March 14, 2011, and only 21 days prior to the trial date of April 25, 2011.

The Court understands from the parties' request that they have mediated their dispute and are working toward a negotiated settlement. Although the Court is willing to grant some modification to the existing schedule while the parties attempt to settle the case, the request they have proposed cannot be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The parties' request for a revised scheduling order is DENIED without prejudice;

2. If the parties wish to submit a revised schedule that proposes reasonable deadlines, they may do so; and

3. To the extent that the parties refile this request, they should include a declaration or affidavit explaining when the mediation was conducted and setting forth the parties' progress in their settlement negotiations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101117

© 1992-2010 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.