Shuvalova et al v. Cunningham et al

Filing 119

ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 1/16/2013. (knmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 NATALYA SHUVALOVA, Plaintiff, 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 No. C -10-02159 JSC (EDL) ORDER v. JOSEPH RICHARD CUNNINGHAM, Defendant. / 13 14 On July 11, 2012, the Court set a settlement conference in this matter to take place on 15 November 14, 2012. See Docket No. On October 25, 2012, Magistrate Judge Corley held a case 16 management conference at which she continued the settlement conference and ordered that it take 17 place by the end of January 2013. See Docket No. 112. On October 26, 2012, the Court continued 18 the settlement conference to January 16, 2013. See Docket No. 113. According to the Court’s 19 October 26, 2012 Order, the parties were required to file settlement conference statements no later 20 than January 7, 2013. Id. 21 On January 9, 2013, having not received Plaintiffs’ settlement conference statement, the 22 Court’s law clerk called Plaintiffs’ counsel and left a message reminding counsel of the date of the 23 settlement conference and stating that the settlement conference statement was overdue. Plaintiff’s 24 counsel failed to return the Court’s call. On January 15, 2013 at 2:44 p.m., Plaintiffs’ counsel sent 25 an email to the Court’s courtroom deputy and opposing counsel, stating that: “There has apparently 26 been some confusion or miscommunication between counsel as I believed that this settlement 27 conference would be continued to another date, due to the fact that the parties have not yet 28 completed discovery and the court has set a case management conference for January 17, 2013 to reset the Scheduling Order.” Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that she and her clients were not available on 1 January 16, 2013 for the settlement conference. Given Plaintiffs’ email, the Court vacated the 2 January 16, 2013 settlement conference. 3 The Court is troubled that Plaintiffs’ counsel ignored the Court’s courtesy call regarding the 4 submission of a settlement conference statement, and finds counsel’s statement that there was 5 “confusion or miscommunication” puzzling in that the order setting the settlement conference was 6 still in place. Further, the telephone call from the Court should have reemphasized that the 7 settlement conference was going forward. The Court will defer the issue of how to address the 8 violation of its order until after the continued settlement conference. The Court will contact the 9 parties regarding a further date. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 16, 2013 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?