Chacko v. City of Sacramento

Filing 29

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/24/14 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 2/27/13 MOTION to Amend the Complaint 26 is DENIED without prejudice; and Within fourteen days of the date of this order, the parties shall inform the court whether they waive disqualification of the undersigned to conduct a settlement conference or whether the court should randomly assign another magistrate judge.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JESUDAS K. CHACKO,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-2881-MCE-EFB (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CITY OF SACRAMENTO,
Defendant.

15
16

On November 28, 2012, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action alleging

17

violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and the Age

18

Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). ECF No. 1. On August 5, 2013,

19

defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted and plaintiff was granted thirty days leave to file an

20

amended complaint. ECF Nos. 12, 14.

21

On September 4, 2013, plaintiff filed a document that the court construed as a request to

22

settle this action. ECF No. 15. On October 10, 2013, the court ordered defendant to respond to

23

plaintiff’s request and stayed plaintiff’s deadline for filing an amended complaint pending

24

resolution of his request to settle. ECF No. 17. Defendant responded on October 24, 2013,

25

rejecting plaintiff’s request to settle this action for $2,000 “plus some for hardships;” and

26

explaining that it found no record indicating “that any monetary settlement offer was made to

27

[plaintiff] during the EEOC proceedings.” ECF No. 18. On October 31, 2013, plaintiff submitted

28

to the court an e-mail from an EEOC investigator offering a $2,000 settlement on behalf of the
1

1

City of Sacramento. ECF No. 19. In light of this information, on December 4, 2013, the court

2

ordered defendant to again respond to plaintiff’s request to settle, and to include in its response

3

whether it would be appropriate for the court to schedule an early settlement conference for this

4

action. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff was granted seven days from the date of defendant’s response to

5

submit a reply. Id.

6

On December 16, 2013, defendant filed with the court a letter that was sent to plaintiff

7

offering to settle “for $2,000 total in exchange for a dismissal of [the action], a waiver of all

8

claims associated with the termination of [plaintiff’s] employment with the City, and a general

9

release of liability.” ECF No. 24. Defendant also stated that if plaintiff was unwilling to settle on

10

the terms presented in the letter “it would be appropriate for the Court to schedule an early

11

settlement conference.” Id. On December 27, 2013, plaintiff filed his letter response thereto,

12

dated December 23, 2013, also indicating that he “would like to settle the case, and need[s] to

13

understand the terms mentioned” in defendant’s December 16, 2013 letter. ECF No. 25. Also on

14

December 27, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint which again requests

15

assistance from the court with settling this action. ECF No. 26.

16

On January 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a second letter, dated January 23, 2014, that

17

purportedly responds to a letter defendant mailed on January 7, 2014. ECF No. 27. In his letter,

18

plaintiff requests a meeting with defendant to discuss his communications with the EEOC and the

19

amended complaint he filed on December 27, 2013. Id. The court was not provided with a copy

20

of defendant’s January 7, 2014 letter.

21

As noted above, the court has stayed the deadline for the filing of plaintiff’s amended

22

complaint pending resolution of the parties’ settlement discussions. ECF No. 17. It appears from

23

the parties’ communications that they are currently engaged in settlement negotiations but those

24

negotiations have been complicated by having to communicate by letter. The court will therefore

25

deny plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint without prejudice, meaning plaintiff will have the

26

opportunity to re-file an amended complaint following the conclusion of the parties’ settlement

27

discussions. If the parties are unable to settle this action, the court will issue an order setting a

28

deadline for the filing of plaintiff’s amended complaint.
2

1

Considering the settlement discussions undertaken by the parties thus far, the court has

2

determined that this case will benefit from a court supervised settlement conference. The parties

3

shall have fourteen days from the date of this order to inform the court, pursuant to Local Rule

4

270(b),1 whether they waive disqualification of the undersigned conducting a settlement

5

conference, or whether the settlement conference should be randomly assigned to another

6

magistrate judge. Thereafter, the court will issue an order setting a settlement conference.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. Plaintiff’s December 27, 2013 motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 26) is denied

9
10

without prejudice; and
2. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, the parties shall inform the court whether

11

they waive disqualification of the undersigned to conduct a settlement conference or whether the

12

court should randomly assign another magistrate judge.

13

Dated: February 24, 2014.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Local Rule 270(b) provides: “Settlement Conferences Before the Assigned Judge or
Magistrate Judge. Unless all the parties affirmatively request that the assigned Judge or
Magistrate Judge participate in the conference and waive in writing any claim of disqualification
on that basis to act as Judge or Magistrate Judge in the action thereafter, the assigned Judge or
Magistrate Judge shall not conduct the settlement conference.”
3