United States Of America v. Prinzi et al

Filing 26

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE LLOYD FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; CONTINUING PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE re 24 Stipulation. Based on the parties' Stipulation and ADR's recommendation, the Court finds good cause to refer this c ase to Judge Lloyd for a Settlement Conference. On or before October 18, 2010, the parties shall contact Judge Lloyd's chambers to set up their conference. Preliminary Pretrial Conference statements due by 12/10/2010. Preliminary Pretrial Confe rence set for 12/20/2010 11:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. The Court's continuance of the Preliminary Pretrial Conference is not intended to extend any other deadlines. Accordingly, the Case Schedule as set for in the Court's Ap ril 15, 2010 Scheduling Order shall remain unchanged. In light of this Order, the Court DENIES as moot Defendants' Motion to Appear by Telephone. *** Motions terminated: 25 MOTION to Appear by Telephone. Signed by Judge James Ware on 10/14/2010. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2010)

Download PDF
United States Of America v. Prinzi et al Doc. 26 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 UNIT ED S 1 Attorneys for United States of America N F D IS T IC T O R UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CARDI M. PRINZI and LORI J. FRANKZKE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 09-05873 JW ORDER REFERRING CASE TO STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO REFER CASE FOR FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE LLOYD SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; EXTEND CASEPRELIMINARY CONTINUING DEADLINES ACCORDINGLY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: October 14, 2010 __________________________ JAMES WARE United States District Judge Dockets.Justia.com The partiesbefore the Court is the parties' Stipulation to refer this case to a follows: Presently hereby stipulate and agree, subject to this Court's approval, as magistrate judge for aOn Octoberconferencethe parties attended aPreliminary ADR conference. The parties 1. settlement 13, 2010, and to continue the telephonic Pretrial Conference currently set for October 25, 2010. (Docket Item No. 24.) Based on the parties' Stipulation and ADR's recommendation, the Court finds good causeUnited States Magistrate Judge tofor a Settlement have requested that this case be referred to a to refer this case to Judge Lloyd conduct a Conference. On or before October 18, 2010, the parties shall contact Judge Lloyd's chambers to set lement conference. settup theirconference within the next 90 days. 2.The Court also findsrequest that this Court extend the October 15, 2010 deadline from The parties further good cause to continue the Preliminary Pretrial Conference to file October 25, 2010 to December 20, 2010 at 10 a.m. On or before December 10, 2010, the a Joint shall file a Joint Preliminary Pretrial Statement. The Statement shall include a in order parties Preliminary Pretrial Statement and the October 25, 2010 Pre Trial Conference, status to update the the parties' settlement settlement conference. proposed trial schedule. enable on parties to engage in a efforts and the parties' The Court's continuance of the Preliminary Pretrial Conference is not intended to extend any other deadlines. Accordingly, the Case Schedule as set for in the Court's April 15, // 2010 Scheduling Order shall remain unchanged. (See Docket Item No. 17.) // In light of this Order, the Court DENIES as moot Defendants' Motion to Appear by Telephone. (Docket Item No. 25.) // A MELINDA HAAG (CSBN 132612) United States Attorney THOMAS MOORE (ASBN 4305-O78T) Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Tax Division CYNTHIA STIER (DCBN 423256) Assistant United States Attorney 9th Floor Federal Building 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-7000 S DISTRICT TE C TA ER C LI FO mes Wa Judge Ja re R NIA DERED SO OR ED IT IS DIFI AS MO RT U O NO RT H

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?