Cesar Ardon et al v. 3PD Inc et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING JOINT REQUEST TO FURTHER STAY PROCEEDINGS 29 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court DENIES the parties request for a further stay. The Court LIFTS the stay in this action and SETS a status/scheduling conference for Monday, June 9, 201 4 1;30 PM. The Court strongly encourages the parties to continue their own settlement discussions unhindered by this Order. But the parties should be prepared to address the Courts arbitration concerns as well as their efforts since the past status c onference. The Court accordingly ORDERS the parties to submit a revised Rule 26(f) report by Monday, June 2, 2014. This report should also include a joint status report covering the period since the last status conference. (lc). Modified on 5/7/2014 .(lc). Modified on 5/7/2014 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

CESAR ARDON et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

Case No. 5:13-cv-01758-ODW(DTBx)

v.

ORDER DENYING JOINT

3PD Inc.; DOES 1–2, inclusive,
Defendants.

15

REQUEST TO FURTHER STAY
PROCEEDINGS [29]

16

On February 14, 2014, the parties filed their joint scheduling report as required

17

by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). In that report, Defendant 3PD Inc. noted

18

that there is an arbitration clause in the employment agreement at issue. At the

19

February 24, 2014 scheduling conference, the Court raised the issue of whether this

20

matter properly belonged in arbitration in light of that clause. The parties agreed to

21

brief the issue.

22

On March 3, 2014, the parties stipulated to stay the proceedings so that they

23

could engage in early settlement negotiations. (ECF No. 26.) Wanting to encourage

24

an amicable resolution of the matter, the Court granted the request and stayed the

25

action until May 2, 2014. (ECF No. 27.)

26

On May 2, 2014, the parties responded ny requesting a further stay until June 6,

27

2014. (ECF No. 29.) While the parties indicate that “settlement discussions have

28

been somewhat slowed due to the time-consuming nature of Defendant’s data

1

collection efforts,” they do not state exactly what, if any, settlement negotiations they

2

have engaged in. The tenor of their status report seems to indicate that they simply

3

took the Court’s previous Order as a two-month hiatus in case prosecution so that they

4

could handle informal discovery. That is not what the Court approved.

5

Since it is not apparent that the parties are going to start, continue, or otherwise

6

engage in settlement efforts at this time, the Court DENIES the parties’ request for a

7

further stay. The Court LIFTS the stay in this action and SETS a status/scheduling

8

conference for Monday, June 9, 2014. The Court strongly encourages the parties to

9

continue their own settlement discussions unhindered by this Order. But the parties

10

should be prepared to address the Court’s arbitration concerns as well as their efforts

11

since the past status conference. The Court accordingly ORDERS the parties to

12

submit a revised Rule 26(f) report by Monday, June 2, 2014. This report should also

13

include a joint status report covering the period since the last status conference.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

May 6, 2014

17
18
19

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2