Johnson v. Marco Investment Co. et al

Filing 8

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 8/15/17 ORDERING that this case is STAYED pending further order of the court. The parties are directed to promptly meet and confer to discuss settlement of this action. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT JOHNSON, 2:17cv1194 JAM DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 MARCO INVESTMENT CO., et al, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff initially commenced this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) on June 8, 2017. Thereafter, on June 30, 2017 defendants filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No.5.) In the interest of avoiding the accumulation of fees and costs through potentially unnecessary discovery and motion practice, and to allow the parties sufficient time to pursue an early informal resolution of this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This action is STAYED pending further order of the court. 2. The parties are directed to promptly meet and confer to discuss settlement of this action. Settlement discussions require focus and preparation and should involve the attorneys who will try the case and the person or persons having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any terms. Plaintiff should initiate settlement 28 1 1 discussions by providing a written itemization of damages and a meaningful 2 settlement demand that includes an explanation of why the demand is appropriate. 3 Defendant should respond with an acceptance of the offer or with a meaningful 4 counteroffer, and which includes an explanation of why the counteroffer is reasonable. 5 The parties should continue in this way until they reach settlement or have exhausted 6 informal settlement efforts. 7 3. If the parties have not been able to informally reach a settlement within 45 days, the 8 parties shall initiate participation in the court’s Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program 9 (“VDRP”) by contacting the court’s VDRP administrator, Sujean Park, at (916) 9304278 or 10 11 4. The parties shall carefully review and comply with Local Rule 271, which outlines the 12 specifications and requirements of the VDRP. 13 5. No later than fourteen (14) days after completion of the VDRP session, the parties 14 shall jointly file their VDRP Completion Report, consistent with Local Rule 271(o). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: August 15, 2017 17 /s/ John A. Mendez___________________ 18 John A. Mendez, U.S. District Court Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 26 27 28 The resources of the VDRP program are limited, and the parties are expected to make good faith efforts to timely and fully exhaust informal settlement efforts prior to initiating participation in the VDRP. The court will look with disfavor upon parties stalling or failing to participate in the above-mentioned initial informal discussions, prompting potentially unnecessary participation in the VDRP and straining the program’s resources. 2

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?