POGA MGMT PTNRS LLC v. Medfiler LLC et al

Filing 121

ORDER re 120 Response filed by POGA MGMT PTNRS LLC. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 6/15/2015. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

POGA MGMT PTNRS LLC,

Case No. 12-cv-06087-SBA (NJV)

Plaintiff,
9
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION

v.
10
11

MEDFILER LLC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 120

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

Although not filed as a motion to reconsider or vacate, Plaintiff has filed a Memorandum

15

of Opposition, in which Plaintiff requests this court vacate its Order of June 11, 2015, which

16

canceled the settlement conference set for June 17, 2015. See (Doc. 120). The court issued the

17

Order that cancelled the settlement conference and reset the matter for a status conference upon

18

consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Continue. (Doc. 118). Plaintiff’s present concern is that

19

the court did so prior to allowing Plaintiff to file an opposition.

20

The court considered the request made by Defendants, Defendants’ representation that

21

Plaintiff opposed the request (the court is well aware of the benefits of early settlement of a case to

22

both the parties and the court and whether early settlement conferences can be productive),

23

Defendants’ assertion that a settlement conference would be unproductive prior to the issuance of

24

an order on summary judgment, and the fact that the settlement conference was scheduled to occur

25

within four business days of the request to cancel. After taking all of these issues into

26

consideration the court determined that the best course was to grant the continuance.

27
28

Now, after consideration of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Opposition, the court’s opinion

1
2

remains unaltered.1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the request to vacate the court’s Order of

3

June 11, 2015 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: June 15, 2015
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
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
1

27
28

The court notes that while counsel and the parties are subject to the provisions of the Local
Rules, the court certainly is not. The court may run its calendar and manage its recourses as it sees
fit. The court’s Order of June 11, 2015, pursuant to L.R. 7-11(c), supersedes any opposition
deadlines.
2