Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03090/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03090-7/pdf.json

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

 1 In civil cases when a party requests specific relief, except for dismissal or

summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) or 56, the party

must lodge with the Clerk a separate proposed order. 7.1(b)(2) Counsel is advised that

future failure to comply with the local rules will result in the Court striking any

documents not in compliance with the Rules.

 2

On August 14, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion to continue the pre-trial

conference, which the Court granted the following day. Therefore, despite having notice

of this hearing since August 15, 2007, Mr. Tacker waited until the day before the hearing

to file the motion to continue the hearing.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hamilton Mortgage Company,

Plaintiff,

v.

Carteret Mortgage Corp.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-3090-PHX-SMM

 ORDER

 Currently before the Court is a Motion to Continue Pre-Trial Conference (Doc. 40)

filed by Mr. Tacker, counsel for Hamilton Mortgage Company.1

 The motion was filed on

the eve of the hearing, and nowhere in the motion was it represented to the Court that the

other two parties were notified of the request. In the motion, Mr. Tacker represented to the

Court that he would be unable to attend the hearing because of a scheduling conflict.2

 More

specifically, Mr. Tacker submitted that he was to attend a “mandatory Arizona State Bar trust

Case 2:06-cv-03090-SMM Document 43 Filed 09/24/07 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 - 2 -

account course.” Mr. Tacker’s last minute conflict motion, especially considering the fact

that this is a multi-party litigation, for which there have been two previous pre-trial

conferences re-scheduled is perplexing. Furthermore, the Court also notes that there have

been no reasons set forth as to the failure of counsel to file the proposed case management

plan, despite the Courts’s previous Order to do so (Doc. 24). Therefore, Counsel is ordered

to appear in front of this Court fully prepared to participate in the Rule 16 Preliminary PreTrial Conference. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Hamilton’s Motion to Continue Pre-Trial

Conference (Doc. 40).

DATED this 24th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03090-SMM Document 43 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 2