Perez v. Min & Kim, Inc. et al

Filing 77

ORDER granting in part 76 MOTION to Modify Scheduling Order and Continue Trial Dates filed by Thomas E. Perez. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA,
Secretary of Labor, United
States Department of Labor,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 15-CV-14310
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

v.
MIN & KIM INC., d/b/a
SEOUL GARDEN OF ANN
ARBOR, KOUNWOO HUR,
and SUNG HEE KIM,
Defendants.
/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc. 76)
Now before the court is the Secretary of Labor’s motion to modify the
scheduling order to reset the trial in this matter no sooner than 60-days
after the court rules on the dispositive and non-dispositive motions now
pending. The Secretary states that concurrence in the motion was sought
but that the Secretary was unable to reach defense counsel. The
Secretary requests the extension in part so that the parties may pursue
settlement discussions pre-trial. Under Local Rule 16.1(f), the court will
reschedule the final pretrial conference and trial date if a timely filed
-1-

dispositive motion is pending on the seventh day before the date for
submitting the final pretrial order. It is unlikely that the court will decide the
dispositive motions pending prior to the date set for the filing of the final
pretrial order. Accordingly, in the event that the court denies the pending
cross-motions for summary judgment, the court anticipates filing a new
scheduling order. Although the Secretary requests a 60-day extension of
the trial date, the court will revisit the question of the number of days to
adjourn the pretrial conference and trial date, if necessary, upon entry of its
decisions on the dispositive motions.
Accordingly, the Secretary’s motion to modify the scheduling order
and to continue the trial dates (Doc. 76) is GRANTED IN PART in that the
court will issue a new scheduling order should the court deny the pending
cross-motions for summary judgment. At this time, the court DENIES as
premature the 60-day time extension sought and will revisit the matter of
timing, if necessary, after the dispositive motions are decided. The court
will hear from defendants at that time as to the appropriate length of time
for the adjournment.
The court notes that the parties previously appeared before
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford for a settlement conference. Given the

-2-

Secretary’s request to extend the scheduling order to allow for settlement
discussions after the dispositive motions are decided, the court invites the
parties to enter into those discussions now. Should the parties wish to do
so before Magistrate Judge Stafford, or if there is any other way that the
court may support the parties in such endeavors, the court invites the
parties to notify the court of their intentions should the parties desire any
assistance from the court in their settlement discussions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 13, 2017
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
July 13, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

-3-