Clem v. Barneys New York, Inc.
Filing
31
ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS COUNSELS NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION AND THE PARTIES OVERDUE MEDIATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/20/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2012)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
OKSANA CLEM,
5
6
No. C 11-3952 CW
Plaintiff,
ORDER CONCERNING
PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL’S NOTICE
OF SUBSTITUTION
AND THE PARTIES’
OVERDUE MEDIATION
v.
7
BARNEYS NEW YORK, INC.,
8
Defendant.
________________________________/
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
On June 14, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel filed a notice of
11
substitution, seeking to withdraw as counsel in this action and
12
let Plaintiff represent herself, as well as a notice asserting a
13
lien against any recovery obtained by Plaintiff for the value of
14
his services.
In response, the Court issued an order stating that
15
it would not allow the substitution of Plaintiff in pro per until
16
after she and her counsel have attempted in good faith to mediate
17
the case.
At that time, a mediation was scheduled for June 19,
18
2012 at 10:00 am.
19
On June 18, 2012, at about 2:41 pm, Plaintiff's counsel filed
20
a document captioned, "Ex parte application re substitution of
21
counsel & mediation attendance."
Plaintiff's counsel did not make
22
a specific request or submit a proposed order, but informed the
23
Court that Plaintiff would be unable to attend the June 19, 2012
24
mediation session, and stated that he would attend unless the
25
Court ordered otherwise.
At about 4:00 pm on the same day,
26
counsel for Defendant submitted an ex parte application to
27
postpone the mediation.
28
Shortly thereafter the ADR Department
1
issued notices canceling the mediation and scheduling an ADR
2
telephone conference call with the parties on June 25, 2012 at
3
2:30 pm.
4
25, 2012 telephone conference.
5
On June 19, 2012, the ADR Department cancelled the June
The Court’s case management order set a deadline for the
6
parties to complete court-connected mediation by April 12, 2012.
7
Docket No. 21.
8
December 2011, but the parties delayed mediation until a date was
9
set for April 16, 2012.
The mediator Jonathan Gross was assigned in
The mediation was then rescheduled on
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
April 3, 2012, May 18, 2012 and again on June 18, 2012.
11
this time, the parties have never submitted a stipulated request
12
to extend the Court's deadline, as required by this Court’s Local
13
Rule 6-1(b).
14
During
As the Court previously ordered, substitution of counsel will
15
not be granted until the parties have participated in good faith
16
in mediation.
17
conference for June 25, 2012 at 2:30 pm or shortly thereafter.
18
The parties, including Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff herself,
19
shall participate in the conference and shall promptly reschedule
20
the mediation.
21
the phone conference, this action will be dismissed for failure to
22
prosecute.
23
not appear, the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute
24
and Plaintiff will be ordered to pay Defendant’s attorney’s
25
expenses.
26
status report indicating the date and time of their mediation.
The ADR department shall reinstate the ADR phone
If Plaintiff does not participate personally in
If Plaintiff agrees to a mediation date and then does
On June 26, 2012, the parties shall submit a joint
27
Plaintiff’s counsel shall serve a copy of this order on
28
Plaintiff, as well as any instructions by ADR about participation
2
1
in the telephone conference and copies of all future filings on
2
the electronic docket, including text entries.
3
serve a copy of this order on the ADR department and the mediator.
4
The clerk shall
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated:
6/20/2012
7
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
cc: ADR; Jonathan Gross
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?