PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES v. WESTERN THRIFT & LOAN, 2:10-cv-01626-PMP-PAL. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20120410964
Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 04, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2012
Summary: ORDER PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. On April 3, 2012, the court held a hearing on the parties' Stipulation Regarding mediation (dkt #25) and Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Submit Joint Pretrial Order — Second Request (Dkt. #27), filed on March 30, 2012. Aimee Cannon appeared on behalf of Plaintiff PHH Mortgage Services, J. Robert Smith appeared for Defendant Western Thrift & Loan, and Ismial Amin appeared for Third Party Defendant Gerald Sandler. The stipulation for mediation proposes
Summary: ORDER PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. On April 3, 2012, the court held a hearing on the parties' Stipulation Regarding mediation (dkt #25) and Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Submit Joint Pretrial Order — Second Request (Dkt. #27), filed on March 30, 2012. Aimee Cannon appeared on behalf of Plaintiff PHH Mortgage Services, J. Robert Smith appeared for Defendant Western Thrift & Loan, and Ismial Amin appeared for Third Party Defendant Gerald Sandler. The stipulation for mediation proposes t..
More
ORDER
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
On April 3, 2012, the court held a hearing on the parties' Stipulation Regarding mediation (dkt #25) and Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Submit Joint Pretrial Order — Second Request (Dkt. #27), filed on March 30, 2012. Aimee Cannon appeared on behalf of Plaintiff PHH Mortgage Services, J. Robert Smith appeared for Defendant Western Thrift & Loan, and Ismial Amin appeared for Third Party Defendant Gerald Sandler.
The stipulation for mediation proposes that a mediation before a magistrate judge take place but would allow any party to opt out. The stipulation to extend proposes an extension of the deadline to file the joint pretrial order until after a mediation which has not been scheduled. At the hearing counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant believed a mediation might be successful between these parties, but that it would likely not resolve the third party claims. Counsel for Third Party Defendant Sandler agreed his client was not in a position to settle at this time and was set to go to trial in a related case out of the district soon. Under these circumstances the court advised counsel that the district judge would automatically refer this matter to the undersigned for a mandatory settlement conference after the joint pretrial order has been filed and a trial date has been set
Having reviewed and considered the matter,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The parties' Stipulations (Dkt. ## 25 & 27) are DENIED.
2. The parties shall have until April 24, 2012, to file a Proposed Joint Pretrial Order which fully complies with Local Rules 16-3 & 16-4.
3. The disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), and any objections thereto, shall be included in the parties Proposed Joint Pretrial Order.
Source: Leagle
