Pete's Seats, Inc. v. Pete's Sports and Entertainment, LLC, et al.
Filing
21
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER CONTINUING Scheduling Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/1/2014. Initial Scheduling Conference CONTINUED to 12/10/2014 at 09:30 AM in Bakersfield at 510 19th Street (JLT) before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Settlement Conference SET for 11/14/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 (MJS), Fresno, before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PETE’S SEATS, INC.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
PETE’S SPORTS AND
ENTERTAINEMENT, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00777 JLT
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE
17
This matter was initated on May 21, 2014 and raises claims under the Lanham Act, the
18
common law and under California’s Business and Professions Code. (Doc. 1) The complaint seeks an
19
injunction, damages, disgorgement of unjust enrichment, fees and costs.
20
On October 1, 2014, the parties filed their joint scheduling conference statement in preparation
21
for the conference set to occur on October 8, 2014. (Doc. 19) In the statement, the parties report that
22
Defendants have changed the business name and, it appears, that no further alleged infringement will
23
occur. Id. at 6. As a result of the name change, Defendants believed the matter had been resolved but
24
Plaintiff contend that they have not settled the matter. Id. The parties seek a settlement conference
25
during the week of Novemeber 10, 2014. Id.
ORDER
26
27
Therefore, the Court ORDERS:
28
1.
A settlement conference is set on November 14, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. before the
1
1
Honorable Michael J. Seng. The conference will occur in Courtroom 6 of the Robert E. Coyle Federal
2
Courthouse located at 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California;
3
2.
Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the Court, the attorneys who will try the case
4
shall appear at the Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons having full
5
authority to negotiate and settle the case on any terms1 at the conference. Consideration of settlement
6
is a serious matter that requires preparation prior to the settlement conference. Set forth below are the
7
procedures the Court will employ, absent good cause, in conducting the conference:
8
9
10
a.
At least 21 days before the settlement conference, Plaintiff SHALL submit to
Defendant via fax or e-mail, a written itemization of damages and a meaningful settlement
demand which includes a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate;
11
b.
Thereafter, no later than 14 days before the settlement conference, Defendant
12
SHALL respond, via fax or e-mail, with an acceptance of the offer or with a meaningful2
13
counteroffer, which includes a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate.
14
c.
If settlement is not achieved, each party SHALL attach copies of their
15
settlement offers to their Confidential Settlement Conference Statement, as described below.
16
Copies of these documents shall not be filed on the court docket.
17
d.
At least five court days before the Settlement Conference, the parties shall
18
submit, directly to Judge Seng’s chambers by e-mail to MJSorders@caed.uscourts.gov, a
19
Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. The statement should not be filed with the
20
Clerk of the Court nor served on any other party, although the parties may file a Notice of
21
Lodging of Settlement Conference Statement. Each statement shall be clearly marked
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Insurance carriers, business organizations, and governmental bodies or agencies whose settlement agreements
are subject to approval by legislative bodies, executive committees, boards of directors or the like shall be represented by
a person or persons who occupy high executive positions in the party organization and who will be directly involved in
the process of approval of any settlement offers or agreements. To the extent possible the representative shall have the
authority, if he or she deems it appropriate, to settle the action on terms consistent with the opposing party’s most recent
demand.
2
“Meaningful” means that the offer is reasonably calculated to settle the case on terms acceptable to the offering
party. “Meaningful” does not include an offer which the offering party knows will not be acceptable to the other party. If,
however, the offering party is only willing to offer a settlement which it knows the other party will not accept, this should
trigger a recognition the case is not in a settlement posture and the parties should confer about continuing or vacating the
settlement conference via stipulation.
2
1
“confidential” with the date and time of the Settlement Conference indicated prominently
2
thereon;
3
e.
The Confidential Settlement Conference Statement shall include the following:
4
A.
A brief statement of the facts of the case;
5
B.
A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other
6
grounds upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the
7
parties’ likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of
8
the major issues in dispute;
9
C.
A summary of the proceedings to date;
10
D.
An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery,
11
pretrial and trial;
12
E.
The relief sought;
13
F.
The party's position on settlement, including present demands and offers
14
and a history of past settlement discussions, offers and demands;
15
3.
The parties SHALL exchange their initial disclosures no later than October 17, 2014;
16
4.
The scheduling conference is CONTINUED to December 10, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.
17
Telephonic appearances via CourtCall are authorized.
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 1, 2014
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?