Slama v. City of Madera, et al

Filing 132

ORDER DISCHARGING 125 Order to Show Cause; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion 123 Requesting Leave of Court to Engage in Settlement Discussions Before the Trial Date is set; ORDER SETTING Pretrial Conference for 1/11/20 13, at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 2 (AWI) before Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Jury Trial set for 3/5/2013, at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 2 (AWI) before Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Defendants shall FILE a status report by no later than September 12, 2012, indicating their willingness to participate in a settlement conference. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/28/2012. (Timken, A)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5

ANTHONY DEAN SLAMA,

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00810-AWI-SKO

6

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff,
7
v.

(Docket No. 125)

8
9

CITY OF MADERA, et al.,

11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE OF
COURT TO ENGAGE IN
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
BEFORE THE TRIAL DATE IS SET

12

(Docket No. 123)

10
Defendants.

13
ORDER SETTING PRE-TRIAL
CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES

14
15

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS
TO FILE A STATUS UPDATE RE:
WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE
IN SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

16
17
18

/

19
20

I. INTRODUCTION

21

On June 26, 2012, the Court issued an order denying in part Defendants' motion for summary

22

judgment, finding that there were material facts in dispute as to Plaintiff's claims for arrest without

23

probable cause and excessive force. (Doc. 122.) The Court ordered the parties to "contact the

24

Magistrate Judge within 30 days of service of this order for the purpose of setting a pre-trial

25

conference date and a trial date." (Doc. 122, 18:17-18.)

26

On July 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a "Motion and Request to Seek Leave of the Court to

27

Potentially Resolve and/or Settle with the Defendants Without Issuing a Full Trial in Conjunction

28

With Reasonable Attempts to Obtain Counsel" and an "Acknowledgment of Order on Summary

1

Judgment and Contact as Requested by the Trial Court for the Purposes of Setting Pre-Trial

2

Conference and Trial Date." (Docs. 123, 124.) Plaintiff acknowledged that the Court's June 26,

3

2012, order denying in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment required the parties to contact

4

the Court to set the pre-trial conference and trial dates, and indicated that he was seeking leave of

5

the Court to resolve and/or settle the case with Defendants without the issuance of a full trial

6

schedule. (Docs. 123, 124.)

7

On August 10, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why Defendants' counsel

8

should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with the June 26, 2012, Court order requiring

9

Defendants to contact the Court regarding dates for the pre-trial conference and trial. (Doc. 125.)

10

Defendants were also ordered to file a status report proposing those dates and indicating whether

11

they believe, in good faith, that a settlement is a possibility in this action and whether they were

12

interested in participating in a settlement conference. (Doc. 125.)

13

On August 13, 2012, Defendants filed the Declaration of Gregory L. Myers, the Declaration

14

of Lisa M. Piatt, and a Status Report in response to the Court's Order to Show Cause. (Docs. 126,

15

128, 130.)

16

Accordingly, the Court DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause, DENIES Plaintiff's request

17

that a trial date not be set at this time, SETS the pre-trial conference and trial dates, and ORDERS

18

Defendants to file a status update by no later than September 12, 2012, indicating whether they are

19

interested in participating in a settlement conference.

20
21

II. DISCUSSION
A.

Order Discharging Order to Show Cause

22

On June 26, 2012, Chief District Judge Anthony W. Ishii denied in part Defendants' motion

23

for summary judgment and further ordered that "[t]he parties shall contact the Magistrate Judge

24

within 30 days of service of this order for the purpose of setting a pre-trial conference date and a trial

25

date." (Doc. 122, 18:17-18.) Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated and is appearing pro se,

26

contacted the Court as ordered. (Docs. 123, 124.) Defendants, however, failed to file any

27

information on the docket and did not directly contact the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case;

28

thus, it appeared that Defendants had failed to contact the Court.
2

1

On August 13, 2012, Defendants filed the Declaration of Gregory L. Myers, Defendant's

2

counsel, and the Declaration of Lisa M. Piatt, Mr. Bradley's secretary. (Docs. 126, 128.) Ms. Piatt

3

declares that on July 26, 2012, she contacted the assistant for Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin via

4

e-mail and proposed dates for the pre-trial conference and the trial. (Doc. 128, 1:20-26.) It is

5

unclear why Magistrate Judge Austin's staff was contacted, since this action was reassigned from

6

Magistrate Judge Austin to Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto over two years prior on April 14,

7

2010. (Doc. 55.) Ms. Piatt declares that she was informed that the case was assigned to Judge

8

Oberto and that the proposed dates would be forwarded to Judge Oberto's staff. (Doc. 128, 2:1-4.)

9

Ms. Piatt does not indicate that she followed up with Judge Oberto's staff regarding scheduling in

10

this action.1 (See Doc. 128.) Further, Defendants filed nothing; thus, the docket does not reflect

11

Defendants' efforts to comply with Chief District Judge Ishii's June 26, 2012, Order.2 As such,

12

Defendants did not contact Judge Oberto's chambers directly to propose dates as required in the

13

Court's June 26, 2012, Order, and a review of the docket did not establish that Defendants made any

14

contact with the Court.

15

Nonetheless, as it appears that Defendant's counsel did, in fact, contact a Magistrate Judge

16

to propose dates, albeit the wrong Magistrate Judge, the Court DISCHARGES the Order to Show

17

Cause.

18
19

B.

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Leave of Court to Engage in Settlement
Discussions Before a Trial Date is Set

20

On July 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a "Motion and Request to Seek Leave of the Court to

21

Potentially Resolve and/or Settle with the Defendants Without Issuing a Full Trial in Conjunction

22

With Reasonable Attempts to Obtain Counsel." (Doc. 123.) Plaintiff appears to be requesting that

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

It is noted that Ms. Piatt has misspelled the name of Judge Oberto's courtroom deputy, Alice Timken (see
Doc. 128, 2:4-6.), and, as such, if Ms. Piatt had attempted to contact Ms. Timken directly via e-mail, such misspelling
would have prevented an e-mail from being received by Ms. Timken.
2

W hile undocumented contact with the Court may sometimes appear to be an efficient way to accomplish case
management tasks, such contact can lead to frustrating and time consuming misunderstandings when complying with
express orders. Often, the best method of contacting the Court is to file statements or requests.

3

1

the Court wait 60-90 days before setting a trial date to allow the parties to engage in settlement

2

negotiations. (Doc. 123, 2:16-18.)

3

While the Court does not wish to discourage the parties from engaging in settlement

4

discussions, it is also prudent that the pre-trial conference and trial dates be set in the event that any

5

such settlement discussions should fail – especially in light of the age and procedural posture of this

6

action. As such, to the extent that Plaintiff is requesting that the Court postpone setting the pre-trial

7

conference and trial dates, that request is DENIED. However, the Court will leave time between the

8

present date and the future trial date to allow the parties to engage in settlement negotiations should

9

they desire to do so.

10

C.

Order Setting Pre-Trial Conference and Trial Dates

11

On August 13, 2012, pursuant to the Court's August 10, 2012, order, Defendants filed a status

12

report proposing dates for the pre-trial conference of January 3 or 11, 2013, and for the trial of

13

February 4-13 or 18-22, 2013. (Doc. 130.) Defendants, however, did not allow sufficient time

14

between the proposed pre-trial conference date and the trial date to allow for Chief District Judge

15

Ishii's impacted scheduled. As such, based upon Defendants' proposed pre-trial conference date of

16

January 11, 2013, the Court SETS the following schedule:

17

Pre-trial Conference Date:

January 11, 2013

18

Commencement of Trial Date:

March 5, 2013

19
20

D.

Order Requiring Defendants to File a Status Update Regarding Willingness to
Participate in Settlement Conference

21

As noted above, on July 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a "Motion and Request to Seek Leave of the

22

Court to Potentially Resolve and/or Settle with the Defendants Without Issuing a Full Trial in

23

Conjunction With Reasonable Attempts to Obtain Counsel." (Doc. 123.) It appears that Plaintiff

24

is requesting that a settlement conference be held in this action. The Court's August 10, 2012, Order

25

required that Defendants file a status update indicating whether they believe, in good faith, that

26

settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they are interested in participating in a settlement

27

conference. (Doc. 125.)

28
4

1

On August 13, 2012, Defendants filed a Status Report indicating that "[a] discussion has

2

taken place with a representative from the City of Madera" and that "any final decisions regarding

3

settlement lies with the City Council for the City of Madera." (Doc. 130, 1:21-22.) Defendants

4

indicate that "[t]he issue of the potential settlement of this case will be brought before the City

5

Council in [a] closed session on September 5, 2012," and that after that session, Defendants will file

6

an update "advising the Court if settlement is a possibility and if they are interested in participating

7

in a settlement conference." (Doc. 130, 1:23-2:1.)

8
9

As such, the Court ORDERS Defendants to file an updated status report regarding their
willingness to participate in a settlement conference by no later than September 12, 2012.

10

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

The Court's August 10, 2012, Order to Show (Doc. 125) is DISCHARGED;

13

2.

Plaintiff's "Motion and Request to Seek Leave of the Court to Potentially Resolve

14

and/or Settle with the Defendants Without Issuing a Full Trial in Conjunction With

15

Reasonable Attempts to Obtain Counsel" (Doc. 123) is DENIED to the extent that

16

Plaintiff is requesting that the Court delay setting the pre-trial conference and trial

17

dates;

18

3.

The pre-trial conference date is SET for January 11, 2013, and the trial

19

commencement date is SET for March 5, 2013, before Chief District Judge Anthony

20

W. Ishii; and

21

4.

22

Defendants shall FILE a status report by no later than September 12, 2012,
indicating their willingness to participate in a settlement conference.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:
ie14hj

August 28, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
5