Dunn et al v. Thomas et al
Filing
2856
ORDER FOR REPLACEMENT ARBITRATOR: This court recently terminated Magistrate Judge John Ott as a judge in this case upon his retirement. See Order (doc. no. 2837 ). Judge Ott had previously served in multiple roles, including as arbitrator of disp utes arising out of consent decrees resolving claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131, et seq. and 504 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, et seq. The parties specifically named Judge Ott as the arbitrato r in the Phase 1 consent decree (doc. no. 728 )and agreed to use the same dispute resolution process in the Phase 2A consent decree (doc. no. 1291 ). Further, the court understands that there is one such arbitration currently pending. See Order (do c. no. 6 ), In re: Patrick Joseph Charest Request for Arbitration in the Braggs Litigation, No. 19-misc-3852, as further set out in order. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The parties are to meet and confer on whether they can agree upon a replacement arbitrator. (2) The parties are to file, by noon on July 6, 2020, a joint statement updating the court as to whether there is an agreement for a replacement arbitrator and, if so, who that person is. (3) If there is no agreement, the par ties are allowed until noon on July 6, 2020, to petition the court to choose and appoint a replacement arbitrator in accordance with the process set forth in the Phase 1 Consent Decree (doc. no. 728 ). The clerk of the court is to furnish a copy of this order to Magistrate Judge John Ott. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/26/2020. (kh, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his
official capacity as
Commissioner of
the Alabama Department of
Corrections, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv601-MHT
(WO)
ORDER FOR REPLACEMENT ARBITRATOR
This
court
recently
terminated
Magistrate
Judge
John Ott as a judge in this case upon his retirement.
See Order (doc. no. 2837).
Judge Ott had previously
served in multiple roles, including as arbitrator of
disputes
arising
out
of
consent
decrees
resolving
claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities
Act,
42
U.S.C. § 12131,
et
seq.
and § 504
the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.
The
parties
specifically
named
Judge
Ott
as
the
arbitrator in the Phase 1 consent decree (doc. no. 728)
and agreed to use the same dispute resolution process
in
the
Phase
2A
consent
decree
(doc.
no.
1291).
Further, the court understands that there is one such
arbitration currently pending.
See Order (doc. no. 6),
In re: Patrick Joseph Charest Request for Arbitration
in the Braggs Litigation, No. 19-misc-3852.
The
Judge
consent
Ott
disputes,
...
the
arbitrator.”
71 n.15.
decrees
contemplate
becomes
Parties
that
unavailable
will
agree
upon
to
a
“[i]f
...
arbitrate
replacement
Phase 1 Consent Decree (doc. no. 728) at
Further, “[i]f the Parties are unable to
agree upon a replacement arbitrator, they will petition
the Court to appoint a replacement arbitrator who will
be a current or former U.S. Magistrate Judge from one
of the U.S. District Courts sitting in Northern, Middle
or Southern Districts of Alabama.”
Id.
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) The parties are to meet and confer on whether
they can agree upon a replacement arbitrator.
2
(2) The parties are to file, by noon on July 6,
2020, a joint statement updating the court as
to
whether
replacement
there
is
arbitrator
an
and,
agreement
if
so,
for
who
a
that
person is.
(3) If
there
is
no
agreement,
the
parties
are
allowed until noon on July 6, 2020, to petition
the court to choose and appoint a replacement
arbitrator in accordance with the process set
forth in the Phase 1 Consent Decree (doc. no.
728).
The clerk of the court is to furnish a copy of
this order to Magistrate Judge John Ott.
DONE, this the 26th day of June, 2020.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?