Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Chevron USA, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER to All Parties to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Their Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/2/2014. Show Cause Response due by 4/11/2014. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a corporation,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

v.
CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. and KVS
TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Defendants.

17

Case No.: 1:13-CV-00826 - LJO – JLT

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER TO ALL PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
FOR THEIR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER

On March 13, 2014, the Court conducted a settlement conference at which the parties

18
19

agreed upon settlement terms. (Doc. 26) The only impediment was that Defendants’ counsel, Mr.

20

Braze, had to obtain final settlement authority because the agreed amount exceeded the authority

21

that he had been given.1 Id. However, Mr. Braze represented that he would recommend

22

settlement on the terms agreed upon. Id. Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms.

23

Sanchez, to provide to Mr. Braze the key terms which would be requested in the written settlement

24

agreement, no later than March 17, 2014. Id. Mr. Braze was ordered to present these terms and

25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that its order setting the settlement conference required the attendance of all persons necessary such
that there was “full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any terms . . .” (Doc. 18 at 6, emphasis in the
original) Toward that end, when Defendants requested to be allowed to have their representative appear via the
telephone, the Court denied this request. (Doc. 25) Notwithstanding the Court’s order or, even, Defendants’ request,
Defendants failed to provide a representative—either in person or on the telephone—who had full authority to settle
the case, as demonstrated above.

1

1

the settlement figure and recommend settlement to his clients. Id. Then, no later than March 21,

2

2014, Mr. Braze was ordered to report to Ms. Sanchez, whether the client accepted the terms. Id.

3

Finally, no later than March 28, 2014, Ms. Sanchez was ordered to file a notice of settlement,

4

assuming Defendants accepted the settlement. However, of course, that day has come and gone

5

without any such filing.

6
7
8
9

At this point, the Court cannot determine where this process has broken down. Therefore,
the Court ORDERS:
1.

No later than April 11, 2014, the parties SHALL show cause in writing why

monetary sanctions or other sanctions—up to and including dismissal of the action or an order

10

striking the answer and entering default—should not be issued for their failure to comply with the

11

Court’s orders;

12

2.

In the alternative, a notice of settlement may be filed no later than April 11, 2014.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 2, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2