Principal Life Insurance Company v. Sadr et al

Filing 72

ORDER Denying 69 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Continue Mandatory Settlement Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 10/12/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ecs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
KASRA SADR, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
)
ALTON LARSEN FAMILY INSURANCE
)
TRUST, GABRIEL GIORDANO, AND DOES )
1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 10cv510-BTM (BLM)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION TO

CONTINUE MANDATORY
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
[ECF No. 69]

18

On October 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the Mandatory

19

Settlement Conference (“MSC”) currently set for October 18, 2011. ECF No. 69. In support,

20

Plaintiff states that a later MSC date may “lead to a better chance to resolve this matter.”

21

ECF No. 69-1 at 2. Plaintiff also states that there are two motions for summary judg-

22

ment/adjudication pending and that resolution of the motions may significantly narrow the

23

issues in this litigation. Id. Finally, Plaintiff argues that “conducting the MSC at a date

24

closer to the pretrial conference may lead to more successful settlement discussions.” Id.

25

Defendant Kasra Sadr, as Trustee of the Alton Larsen Family Insurance Trust,

26

opposes Plaintiff’s application stating that “delaying the mandatory settlement conference

27

only ensures that the parties are forced to generate more legal fees and costs.” ECF No.

28

70. In addition, Defendant argues that: (1) there is no guarantee that the District Court will

-1-

10cv510-BTM (BLM)

1

have decided the pending motions for summary judgment/adjudication before November

2

14, 2011, the new date Plaintiff proposes for the MSC; (2) a continuance is contrary to the

3

parties’ intent behind the previous agreement to continue the MSC; and (3) Plaintiff could

4

have filed its motion weeks ago as opposed to one week before the scheduled MSC. Id.

5

Finally, Defendant Kasra Sadr notes that Defendant Gabriel Giordano also opposes any

6

further postponement of the MSC. Id. at 3. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s request

7

to continue the MSC is DENIED.

8

First, Plaintiff’s application to continue the MSC is untimely. Plaintiff has had more

9

than a month to request a continuance of the MSC which was set on September 6, 2011.

10

ECF No. 56. Additionally, Plaintiff has had almost three weeks to request a new MSC date

11

since this Court denied Plaintiff’s request to have its corporate representative appear at the

12

MSC telephonically on September 23, 2011, and directed Plaintiff to coordinate a new date

13

and time for the MSC if October 18, 2011 was unworkable. ECF No. 66. Instead, Plaintiff

14

has waited until the week before the scheduled MSC to seek out a continuance without any

15

explanation for its delay. ECF No. 69. Second, the Court finds that the current status of the

16

case is more conducive to settlement than that of the proposed date. It is not certain that

17

continuing the MSC to November will mean that the pending motions for summary

18

judgment/adjudication will be resolved or that they will be resolved in such a way that the

19

issues in this litigation will be narrowed and assist in settling the matter. Accordingly, the

20

MSC will remain as set.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

DATED: October 12, 2011

24
25
26

BARBARA L. MAJOR
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28

-2-

10cv510-BTM (BLM)