From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. City of Ridgecrest

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 2, 2013
CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01232 AWI JLT (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01232 AWI JLT

01-02-2013

WILLIAM DALE HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF RIDGECREST, et al., Defendants.


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.

Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Howard v. City of Ridgecrest

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 2, 2013
CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01232 AWI JLT (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2013)
Case details for

Howard v. City of Ridgecrest

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM DALE HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF RIDGECREST, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 2, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01232 AWI JLT (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2013)