Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00432/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00432-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizona 

Wireless, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jason R. Hope, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-432-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On June 23, 2011, this matter was randomly assigned to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge for purposes of conducting a settlement conference. (Doc. 153) On

July 7, 2011, the undersigned issued a Settlement Conference Order scheduling a

settlement conference for October 4, 2011. (Doc. 158) 

Defendants have filed a motion seeking a modification of the settlement

conference order to allow Defendants’ insurance representative to appear telephonically

and to state that Defendants’ settlement memorandum be confidential and submitted

solely to the mediator. (Doc. 180) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 authorizes the district court to control its

cases “toward a process of judicial management that embraces the entire pretrial phase,

especially motions and discovery.” See In re Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 657 (9th Cir. 2009)

(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee’s note, 1983 Amendment). After

consideration of this matter, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion pursuant to its

Case 2:11-cv-00432-DGC Document 181 Filed 09/23/11 Page 1 of 2
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 -

inherent authority to manage its cases. F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River

Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir.2001) (recognizing that “all federal courts are

vested with inherent powers enabling them to manage their cases and courtrooms

effectively and to ensure obedience to their orders.”).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Modify Settlement

Conference Order, doc. 180, is DENIED. 

DATED this 23rd day of September, 2011.

 

Case 2:11-cv-00432-DGC Document 181 Filed 09/23/11 Page 2 of 2