Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04027/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04027-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

VICTORIA ROGER-VASSELIN,

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C04-4027 TEH 

ORDER SETTING JUNE 26, 2006

CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

On June 6, 2006, the Court held a telephonic conference with the parties in which the

Court granted Defendants’ request for a continuance of the June 27, 2006 trial date. The

Court announced its intention to continue the trial to July 18, 2006. However, one of

Plaintiffs’ counsel has a pre-planned family reunion in August, and Plaintiffs therefore

represented that their clients would be severely prejudiced if this case proceeded to trial on

July 18. Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and to call the Court’s

courtroom deputy with an agreed upon trial date or, alternatively, to let the Court know that

they could not agree on a trial date.

The Court did not hear from counsel for either party for several days. On June 9,

2006, the Court instructed its courtroom deputy to call counsel to inquire about the meet-andconfer process ordered on June 6. Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the Court’s courtroom deputy

that the parties had not yet met and conferred about a new trial date because they anticipated

finalizing a settlement agreement during the week of June 12, 2006.

It is now June 20, 2006, two weeks after the parties were ordered to meet and confer

on a new trial date and more than one week after Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the Court that

the parties anticipated finalizing a settlement agreement in this case. The Court will not

allow this case to languish, as it appears to be doing now, and the Court therefore sets this

Case 3:04-cv-04027-TEH Document 118 Filed 06/20/06 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

case for a further case management conference on Monday, June 26, 2006, at 1:30 PM.

The parties shall file a joint statement no later than Friday, June 23, 2006, at noon. If the

parties have finalized the settlement agreement by then, they shall file a statement to that

effect and no appearances shall be necessary on June 26. If the parties have not yet finalized

the agreement, they shall set forth their jointly proposed trial date or, if they cannot agree on

a trial date, their respective positions on a suitable trial date. They shall also appear on

June 26 to set new trial dates even if settlement discussions are ongoing, unless the parties

represent to the Court in writing that they have settled this case in its entirety and that they

will complete finalization of the settlement agreement by a date certain.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/20/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:04-cv-04027-TEH Document 118 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 2