Opinion
No. 3-11-1085
09-17-2012
DORIS LYNN HOAK, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. DIVERSICARE LEASING CORP.
ORDER
Pursuant to the order entered September 6, 2012 (Docket Entry No. 45), counsel for the parties called the Court on September 14, 2012, at which time they advised that the defendant had provided plaintiffs' counsel with the data addressed in the September 6, 2012, order, although there appeared to be some missing data. Plaintiffs' counsel extrapolated from the data provided and made a settlement demand, to which the defendant intends to respond, after locating any missing data and checking the figures. Defendants' counsel also expressed a desire to complete a round of negotiations before scheduling any ADR. The Court agrees with the defendants' position and encourages the parties to engage in settlement discussions themselves to the extent possible and to determine whether they can resolve the case without the assistance of formal ADR.
Counsel for the parties shall convene another telephone conference call with the Court on Tuesday, September 25, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., to be initiated by defendant's counsel, to address the potential for settlement and propriety of ADR, whether any scheduling deadlines need to be or can be extended, and any other appropriate matters.
It is so ORDERED.
______________________
JULIET GRIFFIN
United States Magistrate Judge