Kemper vs Catholic Healthcare West

Filing 125

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 11/30/11 ORDERING that plaintiff's 121 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED without prejudice; the 10/05/11 hearing is VACATED; plaintiff's 123 Motion to Appear Telephonically is DENIED a s moot; a Settlement Conference is set for 03/22/12 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd; counsel are directed to submit settlement conference statements to the settlement judge not later than 03/15/12 (cc: DAD). (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

EDWARD L. KEMPER and
CONNIE J. ARNOLD, for
themselves and all others
similarly situated,
NO. CIV. S-06-295 LKK/EFB

12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.

O R D E R

14
CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST,
15
Defendant.
/

16
17

Pending before the court in the above captioned case is

18

Plaintiffs’ motion for an evidentiary hearing on their individual

19

damages, ECF No. 121, currently set to be heard on December 5,

20

2011.

21

appear at the December 5, 2011 hearing telephonically.

22

ECF No. 123.

Plaintiffs’ counsel has also filed an unopposed motion to
Pls’ Mot.,

23

In Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants

24

request the court to schedule a mandatory settlement conference 90-

25

120 days from now, in lieu of an evidentiary hearing, to address

26

the issue of damages.

Defs’ Opp’n, ECF No. 124, at 2.

Defendants

1

state that “[i]n the event the parties are unable to come to an

2

agreement as a result of the Settlement Conference, CHW would then

3

have no objection with the Court setting the case for a trial on

4

the issue of damages alleged by Plaintiff or scheduling some other

5

form of hearing in order to resolve the issue of damages.”

6

Defendants also assert that “CHW presented its proposal to Class

7

Counsel prior to filing this Opposition” and that “Class Counsel

8

indicated that it agreed with CHW’s proposal.”

9

Plaintiffs have not filed a reply brief, the court has been

10

notified that Plaintiffs, indeed, agree with Defendants’ proposal.

Id.

Id.

Although

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

11
12

[1] Plaintiffs’ motion for an evidentiary hearing is

13

DENIED, without prejudice.

14

[2] The hearing currently set for December 5, 2011 is

15

VACATED.

16

[3] Plaintiffs’ motion to appear at the December 5, 2011

17

hearing telephonically is DENIED as moot.

18

[4] A Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Dale

19

A. Drozd is SET for March 22, 2012 at 10:00 A.M.

20

Counsel are directed to submit settlement conference

21

statements to the settlement judge not later than March

22

15, 2012.

23

sent

24

option, such statements may be submitted in confidence

25

pursuant to Local Rule 270(d).

26

to:

Settlement conference statements should be
[e-mail].

////
2

At

counsel’s

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

DATED: November 30, 2011.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3