Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01232/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01232-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Ridgecrest
Defendant
William Dale Howard
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM DALE HOWARD, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF RIDGECREST, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01232 AWI JLT

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO 

CONTINUE JOINT SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

(Doc. 19)

Before the Court is the request to reconsider its order denying the parties’ second stipulation 

to continue the scheduling conference. (Doc. 19) The Court denied the stipulation on December 28, 

2012 because the parties failed to demonstrate good cause for the continuance. (Doc. 18) However, 

now, Plaintiff’s counsel reports that the parties have undergone a settlement conference on December 

13, 2012 and have, largely, come to terms. (Doc. 19 at 2-3) Counsel reports that Plaintiff anticipates 

making a settlement counter-offer this week. Id. at 3. 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS,

1. The request to continue the scheduling conference is GRANTED;

2. The scheduling conference is continued to February 4, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. Counsel 

SHALL file a joint scheduling conference statement in advance of the conference as set forth in the 

Court’s July 7, 2012 order. (Doc. 3 at 3-8) Counsel may appear via CourtCall. 

Case 1:12-cv-01232-AWI-JLT Document 20 Filed 01/02/13 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

Absolutely no further continuances of the scheduling conference will be permitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:12-cv-01232-AWI-JLT Document 20 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 2