Rosequist v. Michael Taylor Designs, Inc.

Filing 60

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 59 Stipulation for Amended Pretrial Preparation Order Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 12/16/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2009) Modified on 12/17/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 WILLIAM GIFFEN, an individual and successorin-interest to IVY ROSEQUIST, individually and 7 doing business as WICKER-WICKER-WICKER, 8 9 vs. Plaintiff, Case No: C 08-1588 SBA (BZ) ORDER DENYING STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AMENDED PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

10 MICHAEL TAYLOR DESIGNS, 11 Defendant.

12 _______________________________________ 13 MICHAEL TAYLOR DESIGNS, 14 15 vs. Counter-claimant,

16 WILLIAM GIFFEN, an individual and successorin-interest to IVY ROSEQUIST, individually and 17 doing business as WICKER-WICKER-WICKER MICHAEL TAYLOR DESIGNS, 18 Counter-defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff commenced this action on March 24, 2008. On April 2, 2009, the Court, upon consultation with the parties, entered a pretrial scheduling order which set the trial date for March 8, 2010. (Docket 44.) On August 20, 2009, the parties requested a continuance of the trial date and enlargement of the pretrial schedule by a period of 90 days to allow the parties additional time to discuss settlement. On August 26, 2010, the Court granted the parties' stipulated request and continued the trial to June 21, 2010. The parties are now before the Court on the parties' Stipulation and [Proposed] Order for Amended Pretrial Preparation Order, in which they request another 90 day extension of the trial

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

date, again to engage in further settlement discussions. The Court finds that the parties have had ample opportunity to explore settlement, and they have not demonstrated good cause for another extension of the trial date and related pretrial dates. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties' Stipulation and [Proposed] Order for Amended Pretrial Preparation Order (Docket 59) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2009

____________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

-2-