Opinion
CASE NO. 1:11 CV 01531 AWI SAB
04-26-2013
FRISCO HONNEVK, BOUALAI VONGPHACHANH, Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS NEW WORLD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER VACATING PRE-TRIAL
AND TRIAL DATES AND
CONTINUING SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE TO JUNE 25, 2013
(ECF No. 30)
On September 9, 2011, Defendants removed this action from Fresno County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) On February 8, 2013, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 22.) An amended notice and notice of errata were filed on February 11, 2013. (ECF Nos. 23, 24.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 19, 2013, and Defendants filed objections and a reply on February 25, 2013. (ECF Nos. 26, 27.) On March 7, 2013, the district court issued an order vacating the hearing date on the motion for summary judgment and taking the matter under submission. (ECF No. 29.) On April 23, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the scheduling conference, pre-trial conference, and trial dates until the motion for summary judgment has been decided. (ECF No. 30.)
Due to the pending motion for summary judgment the Court finds good cause exists to amend the scheduling order. Accordingly, the pre-trial conference and jury trial dates shall be vacated. The scheduling conference currently set for May 21, 2013 shall be continued until June 25, 2013. The new dates for the trial and pre-trial conference shall be addressed at the scheduling conference.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The existing trial date of June11, 2013 is VACATED;IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. The existing Pre-Trial Conference date of May 3, 2013, is VACATED;
3. The existing Scheduling Conference date of May 21, 2013, shall be CONTINUED to June 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 9; and
4. The parties shall file a joint scheduling report one week prior to the June 25, 2013 conference date. The joint scheduling report shall address the following, if applicable:
a. Any claims remaining in this action following the decision on the motion for summary judgment;
b. If any further matters remain that need to be resolved prior to the trial of this matter;
c. Whether a settlement conference would be beneficial at this time;
d. Proposed trial date; and
e Estimated length of trial.
_______________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE