Pacatte Construction Company, Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Company et al
Filing
25
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO SCHEDULE ADR PHONE CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/4/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
PACATTE CONSTRUCTION CO,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
No. C 12-01472 JSW
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE AND
DIRECTING PARTIES TO
SCHEDULE ADR PHONE
CONFERENCE
v.
AMCO INSURANCE CO., et al.,
Defendants.
/
14
15
On August 31, 2012, this Court issued an Order directing the parties to file a further
16
stipulation regarding whether they intended to participate in private or court-sponsored
17
mediation. That stipulation was due by September 7, 2012. On September 7, 2012, Defendants
18
filed a further stipulation requesting a referral to the Court’s ADR program. Defendants
19
represented that Plaintiff had not responded to their request to meet and confer on this issue.
20
On September 26, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff to show
21
why the Court should not refer this matter to the Court’s ADR program and is to show cause
22
why sanctions in the amount of $250.00 should not be imposed for failing to comply with the
23
Court’s deadline.
24
On October 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “stipulation” regarding ADR, in which it states that
25
it prefers to participate in private mediation, has provided Defendants with names of mediators,
26
but that it has not heard back from Defendants. Plaintiff has also submitted a declaration
27
regarding the failure to comply with the Court’s deadline. Based on that declaration, the Court
28
DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause without imposing sanctions.
1
The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the parties shall request an ADR conference call
2
with this Court’s ADR Department regarding their impasse over whether mediation shall be
3
private or through the Court’s ADR program.
4
5
Finally, the Court notes that, in the future, no “stipulations” shall be filed with the Court
unless they are submitted on behalf of all parties to this litigation.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 4, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
cc:
ADR Department
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
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?