Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02473/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02473-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE ROMANECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEUTSCHE ASSET MANAGEMENT,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C05-2473 TEH 

ORDER VACATING TRIAL

AND PRETRIAL DATES

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ stipulation to continue the trial and certain

pretrial dates and deadlines in this case. The reason for the parties’ request is that the hearing

on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is currently scheduled only four days prior to

the deadline for the parties’ first set of pretrial filings. The hearing on Defendants’ motion

was originally scheduled for July 24, but the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to continue

that hearing to allow for further settlement discussions. Although the parties requested only

a one-week continuance, the Court was not available until three weeks later. Thus, while the

Court’s unavailability is in part responsible for the delay in this case, the impetus for the

delay was the parties’ request for a one-week extension of the briefing deadlines and hearing

date.

Rather than set new trial dates now, the Court instead finds good cause to vacate the

trial date, pretrial conference date, and deadlines for pretrial filings. The parties shall appear

for a further case management conference to set new trial and pretrial dates on Monday,

August 28, 2006, at 1:30 PM. The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint case

management statement on or before August 21, 2006. The Court will endeavor to provide

Case 3:05-cv-02473-TEH Document 142 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the parties with a ruling on Defendants’ motion prior to that date so that the parties can

provide an accurate estimate for the length of trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 07/27/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-02473-TEH Document 142 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 2