Haynes v. City and County of San Francisco et al
Filing
79
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 4/9/2015 10:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 3/26/2015.ORDER GRANTING 77 MOTION Reopen Discovery filed by City and County of San Francisco. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 3/13/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
PAUL M HAYNES,
Case No. 13-cv-01567-MEJ
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
DISCOVERY AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE
v.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
On March 19, 2014, the parties settled this case at a settlement conference with Magistrate
14
Judge Elizabeth Laporte. Dkt. No. 37. The Court dismissed the case but retained jurisdiction for
15
enforcement of the parties’ agreement. Dkt. No. 39. As Plaintiff subsequently failed to sign the
16
agreement, Defendants filed a motion to enforce the settlement, which the Court granted on
17
October 30, 2014. Dkt. No. 66. The Court ordered Plaintiff to sign the written settlement
18
agreement and provide it to Defendants’ counsel by October 31, 2014. Id.
19
On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff ordered a transcript of the hearing on Defendants’ motion to
20
enforce the settlement. Dkt. No. 74. He then filed a writ petition asking the Ninth Circuit Court
21
of Appeals to vacate this Court’s orders enforcing the settlement. See Dkt. No. 75. The Ninth
22
Circuit denied the writ petition on February 25, 2015, “without prejudice to renewing the
23
arguments in a subsequent appeal after a final judgment has been entered in the district court.”
24
Ofierski Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. A, Dkt. No. 78.
25
On March 12, 2015, Defendants filed the present motion requesting that the Court reopen
26
discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining evidence of the distribution of the funds the City
27
has paid in settlement of Plaintiff’s claims. Mot., Dkt. No. 77. Defendants state that Plaintiff still
28
has not signed the agreement as ordered and has not dismissed his claims as required by the
1
agreement. Id. at 2. However, Defendants already issued a check for the full settlement amount,
2
payable to Plaintiff’s now former attorney Charles Bonner, and Mr. Bonner informed Defendants
3
that he provided Plaintiff with his share of the settlement amount. Id.; Ofierski Decl. ¶ 4.
4
Defendants maintain that whether Plaintiff obtained the benefit of the settlement bears on his legal
5
and equitable rights to contest the settlement. Mot. at 2. They seek to reopen discovery for the
6
limited purpose of confirming that Plaintiff has received the settlement proceeds. Id.
7
Given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s previous orders, the Court GRANTS
8
Defendants’ request to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of confirming that Plaintiff
9
received the settlement proceeds. Defendants may issue a subpoena directed to Charles Bonner
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
and a document production request to Plaintiff regarding the settlement proceeds.
Further, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff Paul M. Haynes to show cause why he should
12
not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the Court’s previous order. Plaintiff is advised
13
that sanctions for contempt of court may include dismissal of this case with prejudice, a monetary
14
fine that accrues on a daily basis until Plaintiff signs the settlement agreement, or remanding him
15
to the custody of the United States Marshal for a term of imprisonment until such time as Plaintiff
16
signs the agreement.
17
Plaintiff shall file a declaration by March 26, 2015. If a responsive declaration is filed, the
18
Court shall either issue an order based on the declaration or conduct a hearing on April 9, 2015 at
19
10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
23
24
Dated: March 13, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
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?