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)

Download PDF
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?