Anthony Peel v. County of San Mateo et al

Filing 24

ORDER RE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 14, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ANTHONY PEEL,

Case No. 15-cv-04694-JST

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION

v.
9
10

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

This civil rights case was filed on October 9, 2015. ECF No. 1. On the same date, the

14

Court issued an Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines. ECF

15

No. 3. That order provided, in pertinent part, that the parties were required to file either a

16

Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference Order by December

17

17, 2015. Id. On December 17, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order selecting

18

private mediation. ECF No. 15.

19

On March 9, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement in connection with

20

the Case Management Conference scheduled for March 16, 2016. ECF No. 23. In the JCMS,

21

Defendants state that they no longer wish to participate in private mediation, and “will be filing an

22

amended stipulation seeking a settlement conference with a magistrate judge, or alternatively,

23

obtain an order at the Case Management Conference making this change.” Id. at 4.

24

The court rules do not permit the parties to schedule a settlement conference with a

25

Magistrate Judge by stipulation. As set forth in A.D.R. Local Rule 3-5, “[i]f the parties are unable

26

to agree on an ADR process, or if the parties believe that a settlement conference with a

27

Magistrate Judge is appreciably more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR, they

28

must file a "Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference." A.D.R. L.R. 3-5(c)(2). This

1

requirement is also stated on the face of the Northern District of California’s form Stipulation and

2

Proposed Order Selecting ADR Process, a copy of which the parties filed on December 17, 2015.

3

If the parties believe that a settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge is “appreciably

4

more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR,” or if other issues have arisen

5

regarding their previous agreement (and the Court’s order) to mediate, they should schedule a

6

phone conference with the ADR office.

7

The Court will not address this subject further at the Case Management Conference.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: March 14, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2