Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The court has before it a joint stipulation of plaintiff and defendants requesting a 17 continuance of the trial in this case (doc. 73). The parties say they would like to consummate 18 their settlement. But by their own admission, the proposed settlement occurred before Judge 19 Duncan on January 11, 2005, ten months ago. Moreover, the Rule 16 scheduling order in 20 this case specifically advised the parties that there would be no extensions to the pretrial 21 order date, the pretrial conference date, and the firm trial date due to settlement negotiations. 22 Settlement negotiations simply do not constitute good cause to upset a properly entered Rule 23 16 scheduling order and a firm trial date. Accordingly, the joint motion to continue the trial 24 and other dates is DENIED (doc. 73). 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-01862-FJM Document 75 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA EXCHANGE) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) MILLENNIUM CAPITAL HEDGE) ) FUND, et al, ) ) Defendants. ) ) SECURITIES AND COMMISSION, No. CV-03-1862-PHX-FJM ORDER

DATED this 14th day of October, 2005.

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 -2Case 2:03-cv-01862-FJM Document 75 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 2 of 2