Pedraza et al v. Borg

Filing 63

ORDER denying 62 plaintiffs' request for a settlement conference; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re settlement. Stipulated dismissal due by 5/14/2010. If dismissal not filed by that date, then Show Cause Response due by 5/18/2010 and Show Cause Hearing set for 5/25/2010 10:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 4/9/2010. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION MARTIN PEDRAZA, VALENTIN PEDRAZA and FELIPE SALINAS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SELEX, INC., REUBEN BORG dba BORG REDWOOD FENCES and DOES 2-10, Defendants. / No. C08-04710 HRL ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SETTLEMENT [Re: Docket 62] *E-FILED 04-09-2010* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs advise that this case has settled.1 Accordingly, the April 27, 2010 pretrial conference and the trial set to begin on May 3, 2010 have been vacated. Plaintiffs say that a final settlement agreement has been prepared. They do not disagree with any of its terms. Nevertheless, plaintiffs refuse to sign the agreement unless defendants execute the agreement in person. Defendants apparently disagree and reportedly have threatened to bring a motion to enforce the settlement. While acknowledging that the settlement agreement may well be enforceable, plaintiffs claim that their counsel will be obliged to continue prosecuting this case absent a court order enforcing the settlement (presumably, a court order either requiring defendants to sign the settlement papers in person or finding that This is a putative class action in which no class has been certified. The deadline for filing a motion seeking certification has passed. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 defendants' signature on the counterpart is sufficient). Plaintiffs now request a settlement conference with a magistrate judge to resolve this matter. Plaintiffs' request is not well taken. They cite no authority for their contention that an in-person signing by defendants is required to give the settlement agreement effect. Nor have they convinced that a settlement conference with a magistrate judge is warranted. This court takes a dim view of what appears to be an attempt by plaintiffs to unreasonably obstruct the resolution of this case. Their request is denied. On or before May 14, 2010, the parties shall file a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a). If a dismissal is not filed by the specified date, all parties shall appear in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor of the United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 on May 25, 2010, 10:00 a.m. and show cause, if any, why the case should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a). The parties shall file a statement in response to this Order to Show Cause no later than May 18, 2010. The joint statement shall state (1) the status of the activities of the parties in finalizing settlement; and (2) how much additional time, if any, is requested to finalize the settlement and file the dismissal. If a voluntary dismissal is filed as ordered, the Order to Show Cause hearing will be automatically vacated and the parties need not file a joint statement in response to this Order. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 9, 2010 ________________________________ HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5:08-cv-04710-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to: Adam Wang adamqwang@gmail.com, alpedersen@gmail.com, rosilenda@gmail.com Adam Lee Pedersen alpedersen@gmail.com Scott A. Lewis lewis@perrylaw.net Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 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?