Ravan et al v. American Mortgage Express Corp et al

Filing 51

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 50 Joint Case Management Statement. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 16, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MEHDI RAVAN, et al.,

Case No. 11-cv-02371-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

AMERICAN MORTGAGE EXPRESS
CORP, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No.: 50.

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

12
13

This Court recently notified the parties of their failure to comply with the Court’s

14

Reassignment Order, and scheduled the parties for an April 2, 2013 case management conference.

15

Dkt. No. 49. In response, plaintiff’s attorney claims not to have received the Court’s reassignment

16

order, a claim the court finds difficult to accept in light of the ECF email receipt in the court

17

record. Dkt. No. 48 (Notice of Electronic Filing). The parties also request to continue the case

18

management conference for sixty days so that they may “finalize settlement.” Dkt. No. 50.

19

The lawsuit was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court on March 30, 2011, almost

20

two years ago, and removed to this Court in May 2011. Defendants have yet to even answer the

21

complaint. In the meantime, the parties have stipulated to extend deadlines and continue case

22

management conference dates a total of nine times, each time claiming to be exploring settlement.

23

Dkt. Nos. 6, 15, 20, 24, 28, 33, 39, 42 & 45. Indeed, on October 27, 2011, over 16 months ago,

24

the parties claimed that they were close to finalizing a settlement, Dkt. No. 23, a claim they now

25

make again as a basis for requesting that their case management conference once again be

26

continued.

27
28

If the parties have been working as diligently on settlement in this straightforward
mortgage case as they represent, the case would have long ago been dismissed. The Court can

1

only conclude that the parties’ settlement discussions will not bear fruit, at least until the matter is

2

set for trial. At the case management conference, the parties should be ready to discuss a date

3

within the near future by which defendants will answer, as well as an early trial date.

4
5
6
7
8
9

The request to continue the case management conference is DENIED. The Court looks
forward to discussing this matter with the attorneys on April 2, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2013
______________________________________
Jon S. Tigar
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2