Padilla v. Beard et al
Filing
108
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/30/2016 DENYING plaintiff's 107 Motion to Excuse Personal Appearance at Settlement Conference. Plaintiff may still request brief continuance of 4/1/2016 Settlement Conference provided req uest includes medical documentation evidencing whether plaintiff will likely be able to stabilize his mental condition such that he could engage in in-person settlement negotiations at a later time. And if so, how long plaintiff will likely need to reach a sufficiently stabilized mental state. (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JERMAINE PADILLA,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-1118-KJM-CKD
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to excuse him from appearing in person at
18
the settlement conference before the undersigned scheduled in this action for April 1, 2016, at
19
9:00 a.m. (ECF No. 107.) Plaintiff contends that his proposed absence from the settlement
20
conference should be excused in light of concerns by plaintiff’s mental health treatment team’s
21
that plaintiff’s travel to Sacramento for the settlement conference would jeopardize the stability of
22
his mental health and an upcoming opportunity for his placement in permanent supportive
23
housing at a board and care facility. (Id.) In support of this argument, plaintiff attaches a
24
declaration of his counsel, Lori Rifkin, which includes a letter from one of plaintiff’s treating
25
psychologists. (ECF No. 107-1 (“Rifkin Decl.”).) This declaration generally evidences the
26
concerns plaintiff’s treating mental health physicians have with the potential negative impact that
27
travel to Sacramento and in-person attendance at the settlement conference will have on
28
plaintiff’s mental status. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that, in lieu of attending in person, he can be
1
1
available by phone for consultation during the settlement conference, and has authorized his
2
counsel to conduct settlement negotiations on his behalf. (ECF No. 107 at 2.) After considering
3
plaintiff’s motion and the supporting documentation, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED for the
4
reasons discussed below.
5
While the undersigned is sympathetic to the difficulties that in-person attendance may
6
pose regarding plaintiff’s attempts to stabilize his mental health, he has not shown that he is
7
incompetent to make informed decisions regarding the direction of this action or is otherwise
8
unable to appropriately engage in the settlement process in person.1 Indeed, as plaintiff notes in
9
his motion and his counsel states in her declaration, plaintiff himself has expressed a willingness
10
to attend the settlement conference in person. (ECF No. 107 at 2; Rifkin Decl. ¶ 5.) Furthermore,
11
counsel’s proposal that plaintiff attend the settlement conference telephonically demonstrates that
12
plaintiff still has the capacity to engage in and make informed decisions regarding the settlement
13
process. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel indicates that while plaintiff’s mental health is still
14
tenuous, it “has improved since January [, when plaintiff was unable to complete a deposition,]
15
with more consistent medication” (Rifkin Decl. ¶ 7), further indicating that plaintiff’s mental
16
condition is sufficiently stable such that he can attend the settlement conference in person and
17
appropriately engage in the process. The undersigned finds that plaintiff’s attendance at his own
18
settlement conference would assist in the settlement process to a degree that his availability by
19
telephone would not and that the benefit of his in-person attendance outweighs the potential
20
burden plaintiff demonstrates with regard to the impact on his mental health. Accordingly, the
21
undersigned finds that plaintiff has failed to provide good cause for his request. Therefore, it is
22
denied.
23
Nevertheless, while the undersigned finds plaintiff’s in-person attendance at the settlement
24
conference necessary, plaintiff is informed that the undersigned is open to entertaining a properly-
25
noticed ex parte request to briefly continue the April 1, 2016 settlement conference to a later date
26
1
27
28
Furthermore, the undersigned expresses serious concerns about plaintiff’s ability to provide
testimony later on in this action either through deposition or at trial to the extent plaintiff suggests
that his mental status renders him incompetent such that he cannot engage in settlement
negotiations in person.
2
1
even at this late hour in order to accommodate plaintiff’s mental health care. However, any such
2
request must include attached medical documentation indicating whether plaintiff will likely be
3
able to stabilize his mental condition such that he could engage in in-person settlement
4
negotiations at a later time, and, if so, how long plaintiff will likely need to reach a sufficiently
5
stabilized mental state.
6
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7
1. Plaintiff’s motion to excuse him from in-person attendance of the April 1, 2016
8
9
settlement conference (ECF No. 107) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff may still request a brief continuance of the April 1, 2016 settlement
10
conference provided that such a request includes medical documentation evidencing
11
whether plaintiff will likely be able to stabilize his mental condition such that he could
12
engage in in-person settlement negotiations at a later time, and, if so, how long
13
plaintiff will likely need to reach a sufficiently stabilized mental state.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 30, 2016
16
17
KJN/amd
18
19
20
21
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?