McAfee et al v. Francis
Filing
74
Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 72 Stipulated Request to Continue Mediation Deadline.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
JIMMY J. McAFEE, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
11
12
13
v.
THOMAS FRANCIS, et. al.,
Defendants.
14
15
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 5:11-CV-00821-LHK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
CONTINUE MEDIATION DEADLINE
On April 1, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the April 4, 2012 mediation and
17
the April 7, 2012 deadline to complete mediation, based upon their representation that “[t]he
18
Parties through their lawyers are actively engaged in settlement negotiations,” and “[t]he Parties
19
believe that the settlement negotiations may be successful.” ECF No. 72 at 1. While the Court
20
strongly encourages the parties to settle the above-captioned matter, the mere vague expressions of
21
optimism contained in the parties’ stipulation are insufficient to support continuation of the April 4,
22
2012 mediation session with William Alderman or the April 7, 2012 mediation deadline. In the
23
absence of a stipulated notice of settlement, the Court declines to continue any of these dates at this
24
time. The parties shall file a notice of settlement or dismissal with prejudice by no later than April
25
17, 2012, or if unable to do so, a status report stating that the case did not settle.
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
Dated: April 2, 2012
28
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
1
Case No.: 11-cv-00821-LHK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CONTINUE MEDIATION DEADLINE
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?