Cesar Ardon et al v. 3PD Inc et al
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).
United States District Court
Central District of California
CESAR ARDON et al.,
Case No. 5:13-cv-01758-ODW(DTBx)
ORDER DENYING JOINT
3PD Inc.; DOES 1–2, inclusive,
REQUEST TO FURTHER STAY
On February 14, 2014, the parties filed their joint scheduling report as required
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). In that report, Defendant 3PD Inc. noted
that there is an arbitration clause in the employment agreement at issue. At the
February 24, 2014 scheduling conference, the Court raised the issue of whether this
matter properly belonged in arbitration in light of that clause. The parties agreed to
brief the issue.
On March 3, 2014, the parties stipulated to stay the proceedings so that they
could engage in early settlement negotiations. (ECF No. 26.) Wanting to encourage
an amicable resolution of the matter, the Court granted the request and stayed the
action until May 2, 2014. (ECF No. 27.)
On May 2, 2014, the parties responded ny requesting a further stay until June 6,
2014. (ECF No. 29.) While the parties indicate that “settlement discussions have
been somewhat slowed due to the time-consuming nature of Defendant’s data
collection efforts,” they do not state exactly what, if any, settlement negotiations they
have engaged in. The tenor of their status report seems to indicate that they simply
took the Court’s previous Order as a two-month hiatus in case prosecution so that they
could handle informal discovery. That is not what the Court approved.
Since it is not apparent that the parties are going to start, continue, or otherwise
engage in settlement efforts at this time, 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, 2014. 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 Court’s arbitration concerns as well as their efforts
since the past status conference. 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 6, 2014
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?