Cellco Partnership v. Hope et al
Filing
181
ORDER, denying Defendants' 180 Motion to Modify Settlement Conference Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 9/23/11.(REW)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizona
Wireless,
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
13
14
Jason R. Hope, et al.,
Defendants.
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-11-432-PHX-DGC
ORDER
16
On June 23, 2011, this matter was randomly assigned to the undersigned
17
Magistrate Judge for purposes of conducting a settlement conference. (Doc. 153) On
18
July 7, 2011, the undersigned issued a Settlement Conference Order scheduling a
19
settlement conference for October 4, 2011. (Doc. 158)
20
Defendants have filed a motion seeking a modification of the settlement
21
conference order to allow Defendants’ insurance representative to appear telephonically
22
and to state that Defendants’ settlement memorandum be confidential and submitted
23
solely to the mediator. (Doc. 180)
24
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 authorizes the district court to control its
25
cases “toward a process of judicial management that embraces the entire pretrial phase,
26
especially motions and discovery.” See In re Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 657 (9th Cir. 2009)
27
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee’s note, 1983 Amendment). After
28
consideration of this matter, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion pursuant to its
1
inherent authority to manage its cases. F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River
2
Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir.2001) (recognizing that “all federal courts are
3
vested with inherent powers enabling them to manage their cases and courtrooms
4
effectively and to ensure obedience to their orders.”).
5
Accordingly,
6
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Modify Settlement
7
8
Conference Order, doc. 180, is DENIED.
DATED this 23rd day of September, 2011.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?