Erik R Carbajal v. R Rayborn et al

Filing 43

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Judge Otis D Wright, II: The parties are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the attorneys in this caseMervyn S. Lazarus and Andrew M. Gibsonshould not be sanctioned $1,000 for ignoring the Courts ord er. A written, joint response is due by January 14, 2013. No appearances are necessary. Failure to timely respond may result in additional sanctions, including dismissal or entry of default. This Order to Show Cause will be discharged upon receipt of a status report indicating that asettlement conference has been scheduled. The parties may use outside ADR instead of the magistrate judge if they choose. The Court will not rule on the pending Summary-Judgment motion until the settlement conference has been conducted. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12

ERIK R. CARBAJAL,
v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:11-cv-9134-ODW(DTBx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

R RAYBORN and DOES 1 through 10
inclusive,
Defendants,

13
14
15

On December 21, 2012, the parties stipulated to continue the last settlement

16

conference date. (ECF No. 37.) The Court found no good reason to extend this and

17

denied the request.

18

On March 15, 2012, the Court ordered the parties to conduct their settlement

19

conference by December 31, 2012; and the parties selected Settlement Procedure

20

No. 1—a proceeding before the magistrate judge. (ECF No. 9; Rule 26(f) Report ¶ 5.)

21

On October 30, 2012, the Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to continue

22

pretrial and trial dates because Defendant’s counsel represented that his wife is

23

expected to give birth during that critical phase between pretrial and trial. (ECF Nos.

24

19, 20.) However, no other dates have been continued.

25

The parties contend that the settlement conference date should be moved until

26

after the summary-judgment hearing because with this motion pending, settlement

27

talks would be unproductive. This reasoning is unpersuasive. Instead, the Court finds

28

that the parties blatantly disregarded the December 31, 2012 settlement-conference

1

deadline.

Had the parties sought to follow the Court’s order, they would have

2

scheduled the settlement conference with the magistrate judge well in advance of their

3

motion filing—since unlike outside ADR, magistrate judges usually have full,

4

inflexible calendars.

5

Therefore, the parties are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the

6

attorneys in this case—Mervyn S. Lazarus and Andrew M. Gibson—should not be

7

sanctioned $1,000 for ignoring the Court’s order. A written, joint response is due by

8

January 14, 2013. No appearances are necessary. Failure to timely respond may

9

result in additional sanctions, including dismissal or entry of default. This Order to

10

Show Cause will be discharged upon receipt of a status report indicating that a

11

settlement conference has been scheduled. The parties may use outside ADR instead

12

of the magistrate judge if they choose. The Court will not rule on the pending

13

Summary-Judgment motion until the settlement conference has been conducted.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

December 26, 2012

16
17
18

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2