Johnson v. Canyon Chiropractic
Filing
50
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 49 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Mediation Deadline jointly filed by Scott Johnson. Case Management Statement due 7/18/2018 at 5:00 PM. Initial Case Management Conference set for 7/25/2018 at 2:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 9, 19th Floor. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 14, 2018. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SCOTT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
CANYON CHIROPRACTIC, et al.,
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO
EXTEND MEDIATION DEADLINE
AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-04028-JST
12
Now before the Court is the parties’ request to extend the mediation deadline. ECF No.
13
14
49. Some background is useful to place the request in context.
This case was filed on July 17, 2016. ECF No. 1. The Court promptly issued a scheduling
15
16
order, which required among other things that the parties hold a joint inspection by October 31,
17
2016, and that no more than 42 days after that inspection the plaintiff file a notice of need for
18
mediation if the case did not settle. ECF No. 5. On December 20, 2016, this case was reassigned
19
to the undersigned, but the reassignment did not affect the case deadlines. ECF Nos. 16, 17.
These deadlines came and went. On March 27, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation to
20
21
extend site inspection deadline. ECF No. 19. There, they acknowledged the October 31, 2016
22
deadline, but stated “the parties were unavailable to jointly inspect the site by October 31, 2016,
23
and are engaged in settlement discussions, and therefore require additional time.” Id. They asked
24
that the deadline be extended to April 13, 2017. They did not indicate what had prevented them
25
from complying with the inspection deadline nor, for that matter, what had prevented them from
26
performing an inspection in the five months after the passage of the deadline, or why they failed to
27
move for relief before the deadline passed. Nonetheless, the Court granted the request. ECF No.
28
20.
1
On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a notice of need for mediation pursuant to General
2
Order 56. ECF No. 21. The same day, the Court referred the matter to mediation and set a
3
mediation deadline of August 23, 2017.
4
On June 30, 2017, ADR director Howard Herman attempted to conduct an ADR phone
5
conference, but both Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel failed to appear. ECF Nos. 24,
6
25. The parties were ordered to contact the ADR office by July 5, 2017 to reschedule the phone
7
conference. Id. The record is silent as to whether they did so.
On October 16, 2017, almost two months after the passage of the mediation deadline, the
9
parties filed a joint request to extend the mediation deadline to January 11, 2018. They indicated
10
that “the Defendant’s attorney had a serious health issue and the parties require additional time to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
conduct mediation.” ECF No. 26. The Court granted the request. ECF No. 27.
12
On November 20, 2017, Howard Herman was appointed as the mediator in this case.
13
On January 17, 2018, again after passage of the mediation deadline, the parties asked to
14
extend that deadline. ECF No. 34. They gave no reason for their failure to comply with the
15
January 11, 2018 deadline beyond stating that “the parties are now unavailable to conduct the
16
mediation by January 11, 2018, and therefore require additional time.” Id. They asked that the
17
mediation deadline be extended to February 10, 2018. Id. Once again, the Court granted the
18
request.
19
On January 31, 2018, by stipulation, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
20
defendant Public Storage. ECF No. 39. In part so that Public Storage could be served and appear,
21
on February 9, 2018, the parties again requested that the Court extend the mediation deadline, this
22
time to June 1, 2018. ECF No. 42. The Court granted the request. ECF No. 43.
23
The parties now again ask the Court to extend their mediation deadline after that deadline
24
has passed. ECF No. 49. They state that they set a mediation on June 1, 2018, but that
25
“Defendant Canyon Chiropractic was unable to attend the mediation on June 1, 2018, and
26
therefore the parties require additional time.” What prevented Canyon Chiropractic from
27
attending the mediation, the parties do not say.
28
The parties’ history of casual disregard for the Court’s deadlines has become a source of
2
1
concern for the Court. The parties request to extend their mediation deadline is granted. The
2
Court also sets a case management conference on July 25, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. at which it can
3
discuss what other steps are necessary to bring resolution to this case. A joint case management
4
statement is due by July 18, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 14, 2018
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?