Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01172/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01172-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Airlines, Inc.
Defendant
John A. Schauf
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

JOHN A. SCHAUF,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01172-SKO

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR “SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE” EXTENSION

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO 

THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 29)

On April 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Settlement Conference Extension to Allow 

Defendant Time to Respond to 2nd Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 29.) Plaintiff states he is 

experiencing symptoms of mental distress and requests a continuance of the “settlement 

conference” to seek medical treatment and obtain legal counsel. (Doc. 29, 1-3.) 

To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting relief involving the setting of a settlement

conference, such request is denied as any setting of dates for a settlement conference or 

rescheduling of a settlement conference is left to the parties’ discretion in this case. (See Doc. 25, 

n.5.)1If Plaintiff is requesting a continuance of the scheduling conference set for April 7, 2016, 

 

1

 As noted in the Court’s January 11, 2016, order: 

. . . The decision to settle is left to the discretion of the parties, and the Court will not intervene 

and order such negotiations. The parties are welcome to discuss the possibility of settlement 

among themselves, and should the parties ultimately determine that a settlement conference would 

be beneficial at some later date, the Court is available to set a settlement conference before a 

United States Magistrate Judge. The Court, however, will not order the parties to engage in 

settlement discussions based upon one party’s unilateral demand, and Plaintiff is advised that a 

renewed request to compel Defendant to engage in settlement negotiations will not be entertained. 

Case 1:15-cv-01172-SKO Document 32 Filed 04/05/16 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

his request is granted. The scheduling conference is CONTINUED to June 7, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., 

in Courtroom 7, before the undersigned, to allow Defendant sufficient time to respond to the 

second amended complaint. 

Finally, Plaintiff’s request for additional time for Defendant to respond to the second 

amended complaint is DENIED. Plaintiff may not request relief on Defendant’s behalf; 

Defendant, however, may request such relief should it require additional time to respond to the 

second amended complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for a continuance of the Scheduling Conference is GRANTED. 

The Scheduling Conference set for April 7, 2016, is CONTINUED to June 7, 2016, 

at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 7, before the Honorable Sheila K. Oberto; 

2. The parties shall file their joint scheduling report by no later than May 31, 2016; 

3. The parties shall coordinate with each other one conference call to the Court at 

(559) 499-5790 at the appointed time; and

4. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time for Defendant to respond to the second 

amended complaint is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01172-SKO Document 32 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 2