UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 22, 2011
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
FISHER NUT COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
DENYING IN PART PARTIES' STIPULATED REQUEST TO ORDER GRANTING IN PART, VACATE ALL SCHEDULING DATES
(Docket No. 13)
Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Plaintiff" or "EEOC") filed this action on September 29, 2010. The Court set an initial Scheduling Conference for January 11, 2011. On December 30, 2011, the parties filed a stipulated request seeking to extend the time for Defendant Fisher Nut Company to respond to the complaint and to continue the Scheduling Conference from January 11, 2011, to March 8, 2011. (Doc. 7.) This request was granted on January 3, 2011, and the Scheduling Conference was continued to March 10, 2011. (Doc. 8.)
On January 25, 2011, the parties again filed a request to extend the time for Defendant to respond to the complaint and to continue the Scheduling Conference from March 10, 2011, to March 31, 2011, citing the parties' continuing settlement discussions as a reason for the continuance. This request was granted on January 27, 2011.
On February 7, 2011, the parties filed a third request to extend the time for Defendant to respond to the complaint and to continue the Scheduling Conference. (Doc. 11.) The parties represented that the "principal lawyer for the [EEOC] in this case will be on extended emergency family leave for approximately two weeks." (Doc. 11.) Thus, the parties explained that they "anticipate[d] needing additional time to continue settlement discussions." (Id.) The parties requested that the time for Defendant to respond to the complaint be continued from March 1, 2011, to April 1, 2011, and that the Court continue the Scheduling Conference from March 31, 2011, to April 28, 2011.
Due to counsel's extended family emergency, the Court granted a short continuance of the Scheduling Conference and extended Defendant additional time to respond to the complaint. The Court noted that this case has been pending since September 29, 2010.
On March 21, 2011, the parties filed a stipulated request that all scheduling deadlines in the case be vacated due to a "tentative settlement agreement." (Doc. 13.) The parties state that they are attempting to finalize a consent decree. In light of the parties' tentative settlement, the Court GRANTS the parties' request IN PART by extending additional time for Defendant to respond to the complaint. The parties' request is DENIED to the extent that it requests that all dates be vacated prior to a Notice of Settlement being filed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendant shall file an answer on or before April 12, 2011;
2. The Scheduling Conference remains set for April 19, 2011, at 9:45 a.m.;
3. Alternatively, the parties may file a Notice of Settlement pursuant to Local Rule 160(a) on or before the April 12, 2011, deadline to respond to the complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.