JIMENEZ v. CUSTOM SPRAY SYSTEMS, INC., C12-05469 HRL. (2013)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20130703914
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 02, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2013
Summary: ORDER HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge. At the Case Management Conference held on January 15, 2013, the parties in this case reported that settlement discussions were underway and that they expected to settle the case within 60 days. For that reason, the parties did not select a method of ADR. In the Case Management Order dated January 16, 2013 (Dkt. 16), the Court directed the parties to select a method of ADR no later than March 15, 2013, if the case had not settled by that date. As the par
Summary: ORDER HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge. At the Case Management Conference held on January 15, 2013, the parties in this case reported that settlement discussions were underway and that they expected to settle the case within 60 days. For that reason, the parties did not select a method of ADR. In the Case Management Order dated January 16, 2013 (Dkt. 16), the Court directed the parties to select a method of ADR no later than March 15, 2013, if the case had not settled by that date. As the part..
More
ORDER
HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.
At the Case Management Conference held on January 15, 2013, the parties in this case reported that settlement discussions were underway and that they expected to settle the case within 60 days. For that reason, the parties did not select a method of ADR. In the Case Management Order dated January 16, 2013 (Dkt. 16), the Court directed the parties to select a method of ADR no later than March 15, 2013, if the case had not settled by that date. As the parties have not yet submitted a stipulation selecting an ADR process or a stipulation for dismissal, the parties are directed to file either forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
