Fobbs v. Wilson

Filing 76

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 74 Administrative Motion Extension of Time, requiring parties to meet and confer, requiring reply to be filed by October 1, 2021, and continuing hearing to October 15, 2021 at 9:30 AM. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2021)

Case 3:17-cv-03901-JCS Document 76 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
WILLIAM B. FOBBS,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

FRANK KENDALL,

10

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-03901-JCS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME AND
REQUIRING PARTIES TO MEET AND
CONFER
Re: Dkt. No. 73, 74

12
The administrative motion (dkt. 74) file by Defendant Frank Kendall1 (the “Secretary”) for

13
14

extension of time for his opposition brief is GRANTED, and the brief filed on August 30, 2021

15

(dkt. 75) is deemed timely filed.

16

The Court is concerned that the parties have not engaged in a good faith effort to resolve

17

this dispute. The parties’ settlement agreement under Rule 68 provides only for an award of

18

“reasonable attorneys’ fees to the date of [the Secretary’s] offer in an amount to be determined by

19

the Court.” Dkt. 68-1. Contrary to Fobbs’s attorney’s assertion, attempting to resolve this issue

20

would not be “negotiating against [her]self”; it would be an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable

21

resolution that might be more favorable than what Fobbs will receive if the issue is decided by the

22

Court.2 The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer via videoconference and engage in good

23

faith negotiations to attempt to resolve this issue no later than September 24, 2021.

24

If the parties cannot reach a resolution, Fobbs is ORDERED to file a reply brief no later

25

than October 1, 2021 either conceding or responding to each of the arguments for a reduction of

26
27
28

1

Kendall is automatically substituted as the defendant in this case under Rule 25(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
2
If done at the outset, such negotiations also could have spared counsel the time needed to brief
and argue this motion.

Case 3:17-cv-03901-JCS Document 76 Filed 09/10/21 Page 2 of 2

1

fees included in the Secretary’s opposition brief, and including evidentiary support for the

2

reasonableness of his attorneys’ hourly billing rates. The hearing noticed for October 1, 2021 is

3

CONTINUED to October 15, 2021 at 9:30 AM, to occur via Zoom webinar.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2021
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

8
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
2