(PC) Jordan v. Norris, et al.

Filing 40

ORDER Vacating Settlement Conference re 36 and 39 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 04/27/2021.(Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 LAMAR JORDAN, 8 9 10 Plaintiff, v. O. NORRIS, et al., 11 Case No. 1:20-cv-00467-NONE-EPG (PC) ORDER VACATING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (ECF Nos. 36 & 39) Defendants. 12 13 On March 25, 2021, the Court set this case for a settlement. (ECF No. 36). On April 26, 2021, 14 Defendants filed a notice opting out of an early settlement conference because, after reviewing “the 15 allegations and available medical records, Defendants Dr. Norris, Dr. Anunciacion and Dr. Napoles,” 16 do not believe a settlement conference would be productive before they receive a ruling on the motion 17 for summary judgment they intend to file. (ECF No. 39, p. 2). 18 On October 14, 2020, the Court issued an Order Regarding Early Settlement Conference. 19 (ECF No. 19). In the order, the Court directed Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”) Rohit Kodical 20 (counsel for defendants Norris, Napoles, and State of California) to “either: (1) file a notice that 21 Defendant(s) opt out of the settlement conference; or (2) contact ADR Coordinator Sujean Park 22 (spark@caed.uscourts.gov) to schedule the settlement conference.” (Id. at 2). 23 DAG Kodical did not comply with this order, but the Court granted him additional time to do 24 so. (ECF No. 26). After filing a notice opting out of the early settlement conference in the wrong case 25 (E.D. CA, 2:20-cv-00652, ECF No. 5), DAG Kodical eventually filed the notice in the correct case. 26 (ECF No. 29). 27 28 1 Defendants then agreed to participate in a settlement conference during the Eastern District’s 2 Settlement Week. As Defendants agreed to participate in a settlement conference, the Court issued an 3 order setting a settlement conference. (ECF No. 36). 4 Defendants are now once again opting out of a settlement conference. As Defendants do not 5 believe a settlement conference would be productive at this time, the Court will vacate the settlement 6 conference. 7 8 9 However, it is worth noting that Defendants’ changing positions has caused unnecessary burden on the Court and the Alternate Dispute Resolution Coordinator. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the settlement conference is VACATED.1 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: 13 April 27, 2021 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court may require the parties to participate in a settlement conference at a later stage in this case.

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?