Narog v. City of Redwood City et al

Filing 118

ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 04/07/15. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CORY NAROG,

Case No. 13-cv-03237-DMR

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER

9
10

CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The parties have attended three settlement conferences before Judge Beeler. The first

14

settlement conference, held on December 8, 2014, lasted seven hours and thirty minutes. See

15

Docket No. 88. The second settlement conference, held on February 6, 2015, lasted five hours.

16

See Docket No. 98. The parties attended a third settlement conference before Judge Beeler on

17

March 31, 2015, during which the case settled. See Docket No. 115. The settlement conference

18

was attended by all parties and counsel. It lasted five hours. At the conclusion, the parties

19

indicated that they reached a full settlement and submitted a stipulated dismissal with prejudice,

20

which this court signed. Docket Nos. 113, 114. All parties signed the settlement agreement.

21

Plaintiff has now filed an “Opposition,” stating that Plaintiff “disput[es] the settlement

22

conference” because he was “intimidated and coerced into signing a [settlement] against his best

23

interest,” “unable to make any decisions because of the medications and disabilities [he] was

24

enduring at the time,” and “prevented from consulting with another person for advice and . . .

25

denied additional time to review the documents and terms.” Docket No. 116.

26

Prior to the settlement conference, on March 20, 2015, this court conducted an ex parte

27

hearing on a motion by Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw from this case. Plaintiff and his counsel,

28

but no other parties or counsel, attended the ex parte hearing. Without revealing the contents of

1

tha hearing, ba
at
ased on repe
eated remark by Plaintif this court is convinced that Plaint had full
ks
ff,
tiff

2

con
nfidence in his counsel.
h

3

Under these circum
t
mstances, Pla
aintiff’s asser
rtions that he was pressu
ured to sign t
the

4

settlement agre
eement witho being ab to fully co
out
ble
onsider his o
options are u
unavailaing. The case

5

has been settled and dismis
s
d
ssed with pre
ejudice; a su
ubsequent ch
hange of min does not a
nd
alter this

6

out
tcome. The case is close
ed.

7
8

S
RED.
IT IS SO ORDER

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Da
ated: April 7, 2015
,
___
__________
___________
__________
________
Donna M. Ryu
Un
nited States M
Magistrate J
Judge

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