The Householder Group, LLLP v. Van Mason et al

Filing 47

ORDER granting in part 46 Joint Motion for Additional Time for Settlement Conference. The start time for the Tuesday, November 16, 2010 settlement conference shall be 1:00 p.m. (Arizona time). All other requested relief is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all orders in the April 27, 2010 settlement conference order other than the start time are hereby AFFIRMED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 9/27/10.(LAD)

The Householder Group LLLP v. Van Mason, et al

Doc. 47

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA The Householder Group, LLLP, an) Arizona Limited Liability Limited) Partnership, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Charles Van Mason, an individual; Jeff) Deboer, an individual, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) ) Charles Van Mason, an individual and Jeff) Deboer, an individual, ) ) Counterclaimants, ) ) v. ) ) The Householder Group, LLLP, an) Arizona Limited Liability Limited) Partnership, ) ) Counterdefendant. ) _________________________________ ) No. CV-09-2370-PHX-MHM No. CV-10-0918-PHX-MHM (Consolidated) ORDER

The Court has received the parties' Joint Motion for Additional Time for the Settlement Conference, requesting "additional time for the settlement conference . . . Counsel specifically request that the Settlement Conference commence at or about 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 16, 2010, and continue until 5:00 pm, or until such time as the Court determines." (Doc. 46)

Dockets.Justia.com

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

I. Background Plaintiff filed its Complaint on November 12, 2009 and Defendants answered and counterclaimed on January 19, 2010. (Docs. 1, 14) At the April 20, 2010 Rule 16 scheduling conference, the assigned District Judge, the Honorable Mary H. Murguia, "referr[ed] this matter to a magistrate judge for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference after the motion for partial summary judgment is decided, which the Court will attempt to decide by October, 2010. If the motion is decided this summer or fall, the Court requests the settlement conference be accelerated." (Doc. 30) The reference to a summary judgment motion in the text-only minute entry is to defense counsel's oral "motion for leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment re: resolution of liquidated damages." (Id.) On the same date, the Clerk randomly assigned the settlement conference to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. As authorized by Judge Murguia, Defendants filed a summary judgment motion on June 16, 2010, moving Judge Murguia "for an order granting partial summary judgment on the issue of [Plaintiff's] claim for liquidated damages, barring THG from re-litigating this issue." (Doc. 38 at 6) All briefing on this summary judgment motion has been filed and the motion is under advisement. (Docs. 44-45) On May 21, 2010, Judge Murguia consolidated this case (No. CV-09-2370- PHX-MHM) with another case, No. CV- 10- 0918-PHX-MHM.1 (Doc. 36) The April 27, 2010 settlement conference order sets the subject settlement conference for Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. and indicates that "[t]he Court

No one has informed the settlement conference Judge or his chambers that there is a consolidated case with a new party. At this time, the November 16, 2010 settlement conference does not include the issues and Plaintiff in No. CV-10-0918-PHX-MHM. If the parties in No. CV-10-0918-PHX-MHM jointly agree to participate in the same settlement conference with the parties in No. CV-09-2370-PHX-MHM or if the parties in No. CV09-2370-PHX-MHM desire to postpone the November 16, 2010 settlement conference until after Judge Murguia rules on the pending motion for partial summary judgment, as she directed, counsel shall promptly file a motion and comply with LRCiv 40.2(d). -2-

1

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

has allocated 2 hours for the Settlement Conference or longer if meaningful progress is being made towards settlement." (Doc. 32 at 3) The parties' Joint Case Management Report indicates, inter alia, that "Defendants request that [they] be permitted to file another Motion for Summary Judgment after the completion of discovery [and] will seek dismissal of all other causes of action, including the claims for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets."2 (Doc. 28 at 7) The file reflects that no written or deposition discovery has been taken to date except Defendants' initial disclosures, request for admission, and non-uniform interrogatories. (Docs. 21, 27) There is no proof in the file that Plaintiff has engaged in any discovery except the scheduling order confirms that "[i]nitial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), have already been exchanged." (Doc. 34 at 1) II. Discussion After considering the absence of any depositions of the key parties and corporate representatives to date, the relatively little development of this case, and Defendants' expressed desire to file more summary judgment motions, the Court concludes that a one-half day settlement conference is more than sufficient to conduct a meaningful, productive settlement conference provided, of course, the parties fully comply with all aspects of the Court's April 27, 2010 settlement conference order. At the settlement conference, the Court will invoke a "cut-to-the-chase" procedure designed to reduce or eliminate settlement posturing during each private caucus. The Court will, however, move the start time up to 1:00 p.m. to ensure, at least, one additional hour provided, of course, there is meaningful progress during the afternoon toward a mutual voluntary resolution of this case. Although the extremely busy magistrate judges of this

It is unclear from the Joint Case Management Report whether Judge Murguia addressed this issue at the Rule 16 conference. The scheduling order makes clear that "[n]o party may file more than one motion for summary judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56 unless permission is first obtained, by joint telephone call, from the Court." (Doc. 34 at 4) -3-

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

District do not have the time to devote a full day to this case as counsel request, the parties are free to consider a privately-retained local mediator, at minimum rates beginning at or near $400.00 per hour, who will likely allow the parties to participate in a private mediation as long as the parties desire. IT IS ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion for Additional Time for the Settlement Conference, doc. 46, is GRANTED in part. The start time for the Tuesday, November 16, 2010 settlement conference shall be 1:00 p.m. (Arizona time). All other requested relief is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all orders in the April 27, 2010 settlement conference order other than the start time are hereby AFFIRMED. Dated this 27th day of September, 2010.

-4-