From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Partnership v. Hope

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Sep 23, 2011
No. CV-11-432-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Sep. 23, 2011)

Opinion

No. CV-11-432-PHX-DGC.

September 23, 2011


ORDER


On June 23, 2011, this matter was randomly assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for purposes of conducting a settlement conference. (Doc. 153) On July 7, 2011, the undersigned issued a Settlement Conference Order scheduling a settlement conference for October 4, 2011. (Doc. 158)

Defendants have filed a motion seeking a modification of the settlement conference order to allow Defendants' insurance representative to appear telephonically and to state that Defendants' settlement memorandum be confidential and submitted solely to the mediator. (Doc. 180)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 authorizes the district court to control its cases "toward a process of judicial management that embraces the entire pretrial phase, especially motions and discovery." See In re Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 657 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee's note, 1983 Amendment). After consideration of this matter, the Court will deny Defendants' motion pursuant to its inherent authority to manage its cases. F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (recognizing that "all federal courts are vested with inherent powers enabling them to manage their cases and courtrooms effectively and to ensure obedience to their orders.").

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Modify Settlement Conference Order, doc. 180, is DENIED.


Summaries of

Partnership v. Hope

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Sep 23, 2011
No. CV-11-432-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Sep. 23, 2011)
Case details for

Partnership v. Hope

Case Details

Full title:Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizona Wireless, Plaintiff, v. Jason R. Hope…

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Sep 23, 2011

Citations

No. CV-11-432-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Sep. 23, 2011)