Wolcott v. Board of Rabbis of Northern and Southern California et al
Filing
50
ORDER Referring the Case to Post Screening ADR Project and Staying the Case for 90 Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/20/18. (Documents served via email to Christopher Becker and Sujean Park per Order.) (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRANDON LEE WOLCOTT,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
v.
REYNOSO,
Defendant.
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00936-DAD-JLT (PC)
ORDER REFERRING THE CASE TO POSTSCREENING ADR PROJECT AND STAYING
THE CASE FOR 90 DAYS
16
17
When at least one defendant has been served, the Court is referring all post-screening, civil
18
rights cases filed by pro se inmates to the Post-Screening Alternative Dispute Resolution Project to
19
attempt to resolve cases more quickly and less expensively. Defense counsel from the Office of the
20
California Attorney General has agreed to participate in this pilot project. No defenses or objections
21
are waived by participation.
22
As set forth in the screening order, the Court has found the plaintiff has stated at least one
23
cognizable civil rights claim. Thus, the Court STAYS this action for 90 days to allow the parties to
24
investigate the plaintiff’s claims, meet and confer and participate in a settlement conference.
25
There is a presumption that all post-screening civil rights cases assigned to the
26
undersigned will proceed to settlement conference.1 However, if after investigating plaintiff’s claims
27
28
1
If the case does not settle during the stay, Court will set a deadline for the responsive pleading at the conference.
1
1
and speaking with plaintiff, and after conferring with defense counsel’s supervisor, counsel finds in
2
good faith that a settlement conference would be a waste of resources2, defense counsel may move to
3
opt out of this pilot project.
4
Notwithstanding the requirements of Local Rule 270(b), the settlement conference will be
5
conducted by Magistrate Judge Thurston. The Court deems the deviation from the Local Rule to be
6
appropriate and in the interests of the parties and justice and sound case management based upon the
7
location of the parties. If any party prefers that the settlement conference be conducted by a
8
judicial officer who is not assigned to this case, that party is directed to notify the Court in
9
response to this order of this preference and another judicial officer to be assigned to handle the
10
conference. If all parties to the action have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the settlement
11
conference will be reassigned to a different judicial officer.
12
Within 35 days, the assigned Deputy Attorney General SHALL contact the Courtroom
13
Deputy Clerk at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov, to schedule the settlement conference. If the settlement
14
conference cannot be set quickly due to the court’s calendar, the parties may seek an extension of the
15
initial 90-day stay.
16
Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
17
1.
This action is STAYED for 90 days to allow the parties an opportunity to settle their
18
dispute before a responsive pleading is filed, or the discovery process begins. No other pleadings or
19
other documents may be filed in this case during the stay. The parties SHALL NOT engage in formal
20
discovery, but they may jointly agree to engage in informal discovery.
21
2.
Within 30 days from the date of this order, the parties SHALL file the attached
22
notice, indicating their agreement to proceed to an early settlement conference or whether they believe
23
settlement is not achievable at this time. In addition, they SHALL indicate whether they object to the
24
undersigned conducting the settlement conference.
25
3.
Within 35 days from the date of this order, the assigned Deputy Attorney General
26
27
28
2
By way of guidance, if the defense intends to file an exhaustion motion and believes in good faith that it has a
significant chance of success, this would be a likely circumstance where the opt-out provision should be employed.
2
1
SHALL contact this court’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov, to schedule the
2
settlement conference;
3
4
4.
If the parties settle their case during the stay of this action, they SHALL file a Notice
of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160;
5
5.
The Clerk of the Court SHALL serve via email, copies of: a. plaintiff’s third amended
6
complaint (Doc. 30), b. the Ninth Circuit memorandum (Doc. 42), and c. this order to Supervising
7
Deputy Attorney General Christopher Becker, and copy of this order to ADR Coordinator Sujean
8
Park;
9
6.
The parties are reminded of their obligation to keep the court informed of any changes
10
of addresses during the stay and while the action is pending. Changes of address must be reported
11
promptly in a separate document entitled “Notice of Change of Address.” See L.R. 182(f).
12
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 20, 2018
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRANDON LEE WOLCOTT,
Plaintiff,
12
NOTICE REGARDING EARLY SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
v.
13
14
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00936-DAD-JLT (PC)
REYNOSO,
Defendant.
15
16
As required by the Court’s order:
17
18
1.
19
The party or counsel for the party signing below, agrees that there is a good chance that
20
an early settlement conference will resolve this action and wishes to engage in an early settlement
21
conference.
Yes
22
____
No
____
23
2.
24
25
The party or counsel for the party signing below, agrees the assigned Magistrate Judge
may conduct the settlement conference.
Yes
26
27
No
____
///
28
____
///
4
1
3.
The plaintiff (Check one):
2
_____ Would like to participate in the settlement conference in person, OR
3
_____ Would like to participate in the settlement conference by video conference.
4
5
Dated:
________________________________
Plaintiff or Counsel for Defendants
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?