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.

Miguel Gonzalez, Jr., A Minor By and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Maria Gonzales v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 2, 2011

MIGUEL GONZALEZ, JR., A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MARIA GONZALES,
AND MARIA GONZALEZ,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION MIGUEL GONZALEZ, TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER

(Docket No. 52)

On June 1, 2011, the parties filed a request to modify the scheduling order to allow additional time for the matter to be privately mediated. The first date available for mediation is August 29, 2011, which conflicts with the parties' current schedule. The parties, therefore, request that all the remaining deadlines in the case be extended to allow time for the private mediation.

While the Court is willing to grant a modification of the schedule to allow for mediation, the schedule proposed by the parties is not workable. Specifically, the parties request that the dispositive motion filing deadline be continued to February 30, 2012, and the Pre-Trial conference be continued to April 12, 2012. A February 30, 2012, deadline is impossible and motions must be filed at least 28 days prior to any hearing on that motion. Local Rule 230(b). Thus, a motion filed on February 29, 2012, will not be heard until March 28, 2011, leaving, at best, only 14 days between the dispositive motion hearing date and the Pre-Trial Conference -- which is an insufficient amount of time.

The Court is reticent to select alternative dates for the Pre-Trial conference and the Trial without any input from counsel and their clients regarding their availability on any of the dates chosen. The Court, therefore, denies the modification to the schedule as proposed. The parties are encouraged to renew their motion for a schedule modification that allows: (1) at least 6 weeks between the dispositive motion filing deadline and the hearing date; (2) at least 6 weeks between any dispositive motion hearing and the Pre-Trial Conference and (3) at least 6 weeks between the Pre-Trial Conference and the Trial date.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties' motion for a modification to the schedule is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110602

© 1992-2011 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.