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.

William Dale Howard v. City of Ridgecrest

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 2, 2013

WILLIAM DALE HOWARD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF RIDGECREST, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO CONTINUE JOINT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE (Doc. 19)

Before the Court is the request to reconsider its order denying the parties' second stipulation to continue the scheduling conference. (Doc. 19) The Court denied the stipulation on December 28, 2012 because the parties failed to demonstrate good cause for the continuance. (Doc. 18) However, now, Plaintiff's counsel reports that the parties have undergone a settlement conference on December 13, 2012 and have, largely, come to terms. (Doc. 19 at 2-3) Counsel reports that Plaintiff anticipates making a settlement counter-offer this week. Id. at 3.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS,

1. The request to continue the scheduling conference is GRANTED;

2. The scheduling conference is continued to February 4, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. Counsel SHALL file a joint scheduling conference statement in advance of the conference as set forth in the Court's July 7, 2012 order. (Doc. 3 at 3-8) Counsel may appear via CourtCall.

Absolutely no further continuances of the scheduling conference will be permitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130102

© 1992-2013 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.