UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 16, 2013
MEHDI RAVAN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
AMERICAN MORTGAGE EXPRESS CORP, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jon S. Tigar United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Re: Dkt. No.: 50.
This Court recently notified the parties of their failure to comply with the Court's Reassignment Order, and scheduled the parties for an April 2, 2013 case management conference. 15 Dkt. No. 49. In response, plaintiff's attorney claims not to have received the Court's reassignment 16 order, a claim the court finds difficult to accept in light of the ECF email receipt in the court 17 record. Dkt. No. 48 (Notice of Electronic Filing). The parties also request to continue the case 18 management conference for sixty days so that they may "finalize settlement." Dkt. No. 50. 19
The lawsuit was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court on March 30, 2011, almost 20 two years ago, and removed to this Court in May 2011. Defendants have yet to even answer the 21 complaint. In the meantime, the parties have stipulated to extend deadlines and continue case 22 management conference dates a total of nine times, each time claiming to be exploring settlement. 23 Dkt. Nos. 6, 15, 20, 24, 28, 33, 39, 42 & 45. Indeed, on October 27, 2011, over 16 months ago, 24 the parties claimed that they were close to finalizing a settlement, Dkt. No. 23, a claim they now 25 make again as a basis for requesting that their case management conference once again be 26 continued. 27
If the parties have been working as diligently on settlement in this straightforward 28 mortgage case as they represent, the case would have long ago been dismissed. The Court can only conclude that the parties' settlement discussions will not bear fruit, at least until the matter is 2 set for trial. At the case management conference, the parties should be ready to discuss a date 3 within the near future by which defendants will answer, as well as an early trial date. 4
The request to continue the case management conference is DENIED. The Court looks 5 forward to discussing this matter with the attorneys on April 2, 2013. 6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.