Petillo v. Peterson et al
Filing
81
ORDER Requiring Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would be Beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/24/2018: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
WOULD BE BENEFICIAL
Plaintiff,
10
11
1:16-cv-00488-AWI-JLT (PC)
ISAIAH JOEL PETILLO,
v.
J.L. PETERSON, et al.,
12
14-DAY DEADLINE
Defendants.
13
Given the age of this action and the Court’s ever-burgeoning case load and the delays this
14
15
causes, a court supervised settlement conference may be beneficial in this action. Accordingly,
16
the Court ORDERS that within 14 days of the date of service of this order, the parties SHALL
17
notify the Court whether they believe, in good faith, that a settlement conference is likely to be
18
fruitful.
19
Notwithstanding the requirements of Local Rule 270(b), the settlement conference would
20
be conducted by Magistrate Judge Thurston. The Court deems the deviation from the Local Rule
21
to be appropriate and in the interests of the parties and justice and sound case management in this
22
action.
23
///
24
///
25
26
27
28
///
///
///
///
1
1
If any party prefers that the settlement conference be conducted by a judicial officer
2
who is not assigned to this case, that party is directed to notify the Court in the response to
3
this order, that the party prefers another judicial officer to be assigned to handle the
4
conference.
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 24, 2018
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
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?