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