Skaff et al v. Safari West, Inc. et al

Filing 36

AMENDED ORDER CONTINUING initial case management conference to May 2, 2013. Case Management Statement due by 4/25/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 5/2/2013 10:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 3/25/2013. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division RICHARD SKAFF, et al., 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 Plaintiffs, v. 14 No. C 11-00869 LB AMENDED ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO MAY 2, 2013 [Re: ECF No. 34] SAFARI WEST, INC., et al. 15 16 17 Defendants. _____________________________________/ This is an action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 10, 2012, the 18 parties submitted a joint status update that informed the court that they are continuing their 19 settlement discussions with mediator Daniel Bowling. 10/10/2012 Status Report, ECF No. 27. 20 Because things apparently were going well and the parties were in the process of preparing drafts of 21 settlement documents, the court decided not to set an initial case management conference at that 22 time. 10/10/2012 Order, ECF No. 28. Instead, the court ordered the parties to submit another status 23 update no later than November 12, 2012, describing the current status of the case. Id. 24 On November 26, 2012, the parties filed their updated status report. 11/26/2012 Status Report, 25 ECF No. 29. In it, the parties stated that, while things were still going well, certain scheduling 26 conflicts had prevented them from completing the settlement process. Id. at 3. Accordingly, the 27 court again declined to set an initial case management conference at this time ordered the parties to 28 submit another status update no later than January 18, 2012 that described the current status of the C 11-00869 LB ORDER 1 2 case. 11/28/2012 Order, ECF No. 30. As ordered, the parties filed another status update on January 18, 2013. 1/18/2013 Status Report, 3 ECF No. 32. They stated that they are “very close to confirming an agreement on the equitable 4 relief” and have exchanged counteroffers regarding Plaintiff’s monetary demand. Id. at 2. As the 5 parties’ requested, the court had set an initial case management conference in March 2013. 6 1/24/2013 Order, ECF No. 33. 7 On March 21, 2013, the parties filed another status update. 3/21/2013 Status Report, ECF No. 34. The parties stated that they “have agreed to all equitable relief, have exchanged settlement 9 agreements comments and are close to an agreement on language details, and have made significant 10 progress on their monetary differences.” As such, the parties requested more time to allow them to 11 reach a settlement through the mediation process. 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 Good cause appearing, the initial case management conference originally set for March 28, 2013 13 is CONTINUED to May 2, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, United States District 14 Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.1 The parties shall submit a joint case 15 management conference statement no later than April 18, 2013. If the parties reach an agreement to 16 settle all of Plaintiff’s claims, they shall promptly notify the court so the initial case management 17 conference can be vacated. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: March 25, 2013 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The previous order, filed on May 21, 2013, continued the case management conference to April 25, 2013. This amended order continues the case management conference to May 2, 2013 instead. C 11-00869 LB ORDER 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?