LV Diagnostics, LLC v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER that 33 Stipulation to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 34 Motion for a Settlement Conference is DENIED. The deadline for filing dispositive motions has expired and the deadline to file the joint pretri al order is August 29, 2018. A mandatory settlement conference will be set on the court's first available date once the joint pretrial order is filed, a trial date set, and the district judge refers it for a settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 LV DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, 8 9 10 11 v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01371-JCM-PAL Plaintiff, ORDER (Stip Ext Time – ECF No. 33) (Jt. Mot SC – ECF No. 34) SERVICES Defendants. 12 Before the court is the parties’ untimely filed Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend 13 Dispositive Motion Deadline (ECF No. 33) filed July 26, 2018. The deadline to file dispositive 14 motions expired on July 30, 2018. The stipulation was not submitted 21 days before the expiration 15 of the deadline. The parties request a 90-day extension “because they are trying to resolve this 16 matter with a settlement” and the additional time will allow the parties to complete a mediation or 17 settlement conference without incurring additional costs.” 18 On August 3, 2018 the parties filed a joint motion (ECF No. 34) requesting a settlement 19 conference before a district court judge. The district judges do not conduct settlement conferences 20 in this district. Most of the district judges, including Judge Mahan, automatically refer cases to the 21 assigned magistrate judge for a mandatory settlement conference after dispositive motions are 22 decided and the joint pretrial order is filed. 23 In an Order (ECF No. 29) entered April 6, 2018 the court granted the parties’ stipulation 24 (ECF No 28) requesting a third extension of the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines 25 indicating no further extension would be allowed. The third extension gave the parties until June 26 28th to complete discovery, July 30, 2018 to file dispositive motions, and August 29, 2018 to file 27 the joint pretrial order as the parties requested. The parties then filed an untimely stipulation 28 requesting a fourth extension July 23, 2018 requesting an additional 60-day extension which the 1 1 court denied because the court’s prior order (ECF No. 29) specifically stated that no further 2 extensions would be allowed. The parties have repeatedly filed untimely stipulations to extend 3 the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines and have not shown either good cause or 4 excusable neglect for failing to comply with court imposed deadlines. The stipulations and joint 5 motion are therefore denied. 6 The parties are free to attempt to settle the case before the deadline for filing the joint 7 pretrial order. A mandatory settlement conference will be set on the court’s first available date 8 once the joint pretrial order is filed. 9 Having reviewed and considered the matter, 10 IT IS ORDERED that: 11 1. The parties’ Stipulation to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline (ECF No. 33) is 12 DENIED. 13 2. The parties’ Joint Motion for a Settlement Conference (ECF No 34) is DENIED. 14 3. The deadline for filing dispositive motions has expired and the deadline to file the joint 15 pretrial order is August 29, 2018. A mandatory settlement conference will be set on 16 the court’s first available date once the joint pretrial order is filed, a trial date set, and 17 the district judge refers it for a settlement conference. 18 DATED this 10th day of August, 2018. 19 PEGGY A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?