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)
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?