Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02556/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02556-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ECO RESOURCES, INC., a Texas )

corporation, )

) 2:05-cv-2556-GEB-DAD

Counter-claimant, )

)

v. ) ORDER )

CITY OF RIO VISTA, a California )

municipality, )

)

Counter-defendant. )

)

On January 23, 2007, the parties filed a “Stipulation to

Stay Action Pending Finalizing of Settlement” in which they

“jointly request the Court vacate its Pretrial Schedule Order . . .

and December 1, 2006 Order . . . and stay this action.” (Jan. 23

Stipulation at 1.) The parties state that “[g]ood cause exists for

issuance of a stay [since] the parties reached a settlement

agreement [and] [t]he finalizing of this settlement is contingent

upon future events.” (Id.)

Since the parties fail to address the litigation status

of this action should settlement not be reached, and granting the

stay would cause the litigation status of the action to be

uncertain, the stay request is denied. However, in light of the

Case 2:05-cv-02556-GEB -DAD Document 53 Filed 01/26/07 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

1 Although the stay motion is denied, modifications are made to

the status of the action in order to provide the parties with the

opportunity they seek to finalize their settlement, and to concomitantly

ensure that the action is scheduled for litigation should settlement

efforts fail. Cf. Franklin v. Kaypro Corp., 884 F.2d 1222, 1225 (9th

Cir. 1989) (stating “the policy of federal courts is to promote

settlement before trial,” but indicating litigation should remain

scheduled on “crowded court dockets”). 

2 Accommodating the parties’ requested modifications to the

Status Order necessarily reduces the amount of time between the trial

commencement date of January 29, 2008, and the final pretrial

conference. Because of this reduction, it is unlikely that a settlement

conference supervised by a federal judge will be scheduled in this

action.

2

parties’ representation that they are in the process of finalizing

a settlement, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order filed April

12, 2006, which was modified on December 1, 2006, is further

modified as follows:1

(1) Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a)(2)’s initial expert witness disclosure and report

requirements on or before June 22, 2007, and with the rebuttal expert

disclosures authorized under the Rule on or before July 23, 2007;

(2) discovery shall be completed by August 22, 2007; 

(3) the last hearing date for motions shall be October 22,

2007, at 9:00 a.m.; and

(4) the final pretrial conference is set for December 17,

2007, at 11:00 a.m.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02556-GEB -DAD Document 53 Filed 01/26/07 Page 2 of 2