Anderson et al v. National Football League Management Council et al

Filing 70

ORDER re Attendance at Settlement Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 06/12/2013. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 COURTNEY ANDERSON, et al., 12 13 Plaintiffs, v. 14 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, et al., 15 No. C-12-06386 WHA (DMR) CONSOLIDATED WITH: No. C-12-06415 WHA (DMR) No. C-13-00882 WHA (DMR) Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER RE ATTENDANCE AT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 16 17 The court has received the parties’ settlement conference submissions. Based upon the 18 submissions, it appears that only attorneys, and not the parties, plan to personally attend the June 21, 19 2013 settlement conference. Further, it does not appear that all parties will be represented by lead 20 trial counsel at the settlement conference. The undersigned’s April 17, 2013 Notice of Settlement 21 Conference and Settlement Conference Order provides that “Lead trial counsel shall appear at the 22 settlement conference with the parties and with the person(s) having full authority to make the 23 final decision as to whether any settlement offer is made, accepted, or rejected (if full authority does 24 not rest with the party.” [See Docket No. 53 (Apr. 17, 2013 Order) at (C) (emphasis in original).] 25 With respect to the attendance of all parties, if the parties wish to seek relief from the court’s 26 attendance requirement, they must meet and confer immediately and submit a stipulation with a 27 proposal that is designed to meet the court’s concern that persons with full settlement authority be 28 physically present at the settlement conference. For example, if each side wishes to designate a 1 subset of the parties as a representative committee to appear in person with full authority to settle the 2 case on behalf of all parties, the court would give serious consideration to such a proposal. Any 3 such proposal must be submitted by no later than June 13, 2013. 4 With respect to attendance of counsel, it appears that only lead trial counsel for the Centers Schobel plaintiffs, but it is unclear whether Mr. Sims is lead trial counsel for those plaintiffs as his 7 name does not appear on the docket for any of these cases. It appears that one attorney, Amit 8 Kurlekar, will appear in person on behalf of Defendants, and another attorney, Marla Axelrod, plans 9 to appear by telephone. However, neither attorney is listed on the docket as lead trial counsel. 10 Further, the court has not granted Ms. Axelrod (or anyone else) leave to appear by telephone. 11 Consistent with its order, the court expects lead trial counsel for all parties to be present. Any 12 request for relief must be filed immediately, and must set forth good cause. 13 S Dated: June 12, 2013 17 RT 18 ER H 19 LI NO DONNA M. RYU na M. Ryu United Statesge Don Judge Jud Magistrate 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 A 16 DERED O OR IT IS S R NIA 15 FO IT IS SO ORDERED. UNIT ED 14 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O For the Northern District of California plaintiffs plans to personally attend. James Sims plans to attend on behalf of the Anderson and 6 United States District Court 5 N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?