Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06087/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06087-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

POGA MGMT PTNRS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDFILER LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-06087-SBA (NJV)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION

Re: Dkt. No. 120

Although not filed as a motion to reconsider or vacate, Plaintiff has filed a Memorandum 

of Opposition, in which Plaintiff requests this court vacate its Order of June 11, 2015, which 

canceled the settlement conference set for June 17, 2015. See (Doc. 120). The court issued the 

Order that cancelled the settlement conference and reset the matter for a status conference upon 

consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Continue. (Doc. 118). Plaintiff’s present concern is that 

the court did so prior to allowing Plaintiff to file an opposition. 

The court considered the request made by Defendants, Defendants’ representation that 

Plaintiff opposed the request (the court is well aware of the benefits of early settlement of a case to 

both the parties and the court and whether early settlement conferences can be productive), 

Defendants’ assertion that a settlement conference would be unproductive prior to the issuance of 

an order on summary judgment, and the fact that the settlement conference was scheduled to occur 

within four business days of the request to cancel. After taking all of these issues into

consideration the court determined that the best course was to grant the continuance.

Case 4:12-cv-06087-SBA Document 121 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Now, after consideration of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Opposition, the court’s opinion 

remains unaltered.

1

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the request to vacate the court’s Order of 

June 11, 2015 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2015

______________________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

 The court notes that while counsel and the parties are subject to the provisions of the Local 

Rules, the court certainly is not. The court may run its calendar and manage its recourses as it sees 

fit. The court’s Order of June 11, 2015, pursuant to L.R. 7-11(c), supersedes any opposition 

deadlines.

Case 4:12-cv-06087-SBA Document 121 Filed 06/15/15 Page 2 of 2