From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McDaniel v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 19, 2011
NO. 2:09-cv-02170 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2011)

Opinion

NO. 2:09-cv-02170 KJN P

08-19-2011

CLIFTON JEROME MCDANIEL, Plaintiff, v. D. SMITH, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

On July 8, 2011, pursuant to order of this court filed June 10, 2011 (Dkt. No. 28), defendants' counsel filed a declaration informing the court of the status of settlement negotiations with plaintiff. (See Dkt. No. 29.) Counsel indicated that the parties were close to settlement, and opined that "this case will be resolved given additional time." (Id. at 3.) More than thirty days have passed, but defense counsel has not further communicated with the court. Counsel is reminded that the court perceived "significant delays" in the defense of this case, and "directed [counsel] to expedite settlement negotiations with plaintiff." (Dkt. No. 28 at 1-2.) Counsel is also reminded that time is of the essence because plaintiff's expressed willingness to settle is due to plaintiff's health.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' counsel shall, within 14 days after the filing date of this order, file and serve a declaration informing the court of the progress of defendants' settlement negotiations with plaintiff (without disclosing the terms of such negotiations).

SO ORDERED.

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

McDaniel v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 19, 2011
NO. 2:09-cv-02170 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2011)
Case details for

McDaniel v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:CLIFTON JEROME MCDANIEL, Plaintiff, v. D. SMITH, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 19, 2011

Citations

NO. 2:09-cv-02170 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2011)