Sayamontry v. Allstate Indemnity Company

District Court, D. New Mexico·Decided February 6, 2025·No. 1:23-cv-01126·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

SONE SAYAMONTRY, LORI SAYAMONTRY,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 1:23-cv-1126 JB/DLM

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte under the Court’s inherent power to manage its docket. See Bunn v. Perdue, 966 F.3d 1094, 1099 (10th Cir. 2020) (“District courts are afforded great discretion regarding control of the docket and parties.”) (quoting United States v. Orozco, 916 F.3d 919, 925 (10th Cir. 2019)); SEC v. Mgmt. Sols., Inc., 824 F. App’x 550, 553 (10th Cir. 2020) (“[A] district court has the inherent power to ‘manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’”) (quoting Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016)). Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the previously scheduled status conference. In its place, the Court will conduct a telephonic status conference on the same day February 20, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. MST. To connect to the telephonic status conference, dial: 855-244-8681, and use access code: 2314 983 7724. IT IS SO ORDERED. pews ZL Meg DAMIAN L. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sayamontry v. Allstate Indemnity Company, (D.N.M. 2025).

Sayamontry v. Allstate Indemnity Company (Sayamontry v. Allstate Indemnity Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dietz v. Bouldin
579 U.S. 40 (Supreme Court, 2016)
United States v. Orozco
916 F.3d 919 (Tenth Circuit, 2019)
Bunn v. Perdue
966 F.3d 1094 (Tenth Circuit, 2020)