The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED REQUEST AND ORDERING PARTIES TO FILE NOTICE OF (Docket No. 15)
On April 5, 2011, the parties filed their sixthstipulated request for a continuance of various scheduling deadlines. (Doc. 15.) Since December 30, 2010, the parties have represented to the Court in four stipulated requests for continuances that they were "engaged in settlement discussions," and most recently represent that a settlement has been reached. (See Doc. 7, 2:8-9; Doc. 9, 2:6-7; Doc. 11, 2:7-8; Doc. 13, 17-18; Doc. 15, 3:1-2.) Despite a settlement, the parties have not finalized a Consent Decree and seek a continuance of 30 days to complete this dispositional document. (Doc. 15 ("[Whereas] the parties have settled in substance, have exchanged drafts of a Consent Decree, and need a brief 30-day extension of time to finalize the details of that Decree.").
Pursuant to Local Rule ("L.R.")160(a), once a matter has settled, "it is the duty of counsel to inform the courtroom deputy clerk and the assigned Court's chambers immediately." This is accomplished by filing a Notice of Settlement, which provides notification to the district judge's chambers and the magistrate judge's chambers that the matter is settled. Upon such notification, the district judge will set a date upon which the documents disposing of the action must be filed, which will not be more than 21 days from the date of the notification of settlement, absent good cause.
L.R. 160(b). The scheduling deadlines in this case shall remain in effect until vacated by the district court.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Due to the parties' representation that they have "settled in substance," the parties shall file a Notice of Settlement immediately, pursuant to Local Rule 160(a); and
2. The parties' request for a continuance of the current deadlines is DENIED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...