Arrow Productions, Ltd. v. V.C.X. Ltd. et al

Filing 47

ORDER that counsel shall have until 8/15/2011 to either file the stipulated judgment with the court, or provide the court with three agreed upon trial dates for trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/25/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

ARROW PRODUCTIONS, LTD.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
V.C.X. LTD., et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:09-cv-00737-PMP-PAL
ORDER

12
13

The court conducted a telephonic status conference with counsel on July 25, 2011, at 4:30 p.m.

14

Allen Lichtenstein participated on behalf of the Plaintiff, and Timothy Riley participated on behalf of

15

the Defendants.

16

The court conducted a settlement conference on June 29, 2011. After spending several hours,

17

counsel believed they had resolved their remaining issues to complete a settlement. The court gave the

18

parties until July 13, 2011, to meet and confer to finalize their settlement agreement and prepare a

19

proposed stipulated judgment to effectuate the terms of the agreement. A telephonic status conference

20

was held July 13, 2011, when the parties had not yet filed the stipulation to dismiss. Counsel advised

21

the court that they believed they had a settlement, but both sides still needed final approval from their

22

clients, and the proposed stipulation for entry of judgment needed to be drafted. Counsel hoped to have

23

the matter concluded sooner, but due to scheduling conflicts of counsel for Plaintiff, requested a July

24

25, 2011 status conference if the stipulation to dismiss was not on file. The court granted the request.

25

At today’s status conference, counsel for Defendants advised the court that his client saw the

26

signed form of agreement that Plaintiff signed over the weekend, and that something the parties had

27

agreed to had been “pulled out.” Mr. Riley and Mr. DeWitt have been discussing the matter, but the

28

documents are not finalized.

1

The parties were ordered by the district judge to submit a Joint Pretrial Order and filed a Pretrial

2

Order on May 31, 2011 (Dkt. #43). However, the Joint Pretrial Order did not comply in all respects

3

with the form of Pretrial Order adopted by LR 16-4. Counsel did not submit a list of three agreed upon

4

trial dates, or provide the trial court with an estimate of how long the trial would last. The Joint Pretrial

5

Order submitted by the parties also did not contain Section XI for action taken by the court. However, a

6

Proposed Order (Dkt. #44) was submitted June 14, 2011, for action to be taken by the court.

7

Counsel have twice assured the court that they were close to finalizing a settlement agreement

8

and stipulated judgment. A July 25th status conference was requested out of an abundance of caution

9

because counsel believed the matter should be finally resolved before then. The matter has not been

10

resolved, and no resolution is imminent. Accordingly,

11

IT IS ORDERED counsel shall have until August 15, 2011, to either file the stipulated

12

judgment with the court, or provide the court with three agreed upon dates for trial, and an estimate of

13

how long the trial will last so that this matter can be set for trial and resolved.

14

Dated this 25th day of July, 2011.

15
16
17

_______________________________________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2