Kimberly Cox v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, et al

Filing 92

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 90 PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 3/31/2016. Case Management Conference set for 4/7/2016 11:00 AM. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/25/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

KIMBERLY COX,

Case No. 15-cv-02253-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
[Re: ECF 90]

12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to continue the parties’ Rule 26

14

requirements and the Initial Case Management Conference (“CMC”), currently set for February 4,

15

2016. ECF 90. In addition, Plaintiff asks the Court to relieve the parties from automatic referral to

16

the ADR Multi-Option Program. Id. No Defendant has opposed this Administrative Motion.

17

The timing of parties’ Rule 26 requirements flows from the date of the Initial CMC. See

18

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(f)(1) (requiring parties to confer “at least 21 days before a scheduling

19

conference is to be held”); Fed R. Civ. Pro. 26(a)(1)(c)(“[a] party must make the initial disclosures

20

at or within 14 days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set by

21

stipulation or court order”). Finding sufficient reason to continue the CMC, the Court GRANTS

22

Plaintiff’s request to continue the CMC and the Rule 26 requirements. The Court SETS the Initial

23

Case Management Conference for April 7, 2016 at 11:00 AM.

24

On August 15, 2015, the Court issued an order referring this action to the ADR Unit for a

25

telephone conference to assess this case’s suitability for mediation or a settlement conference

26

because it is foreclosure-related. ECF 47. See also Civ. L.R. 16-8; ADR L.R. 2-3. Plaintiff now

27

moves the Court to relieve the parties from these obligations, arguing that the previous ADR

28

conference was unfruitful and contending that future ones will be as well, but Plaintiff offers no

1

authority for granting such relief.1 Plaintiff also notes that she “was unable to obtain a stipulation”

2

for this request. In light of this district’s policy “to assist parties involved in civil litigation to

3

resolve their disputes in a just, timely and cost-effective manner,” see Civ. L.R. 16-8(a), the Court

4

DENIES Plaintiff’s administrative motion for relief from referral to the ADR Multi-Option

5

Program.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: January 25, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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

1

Plaintiff states that this portion of her motion is “pursuant to Local Rule 3-3(c),” but that Rule,
which governs the relation of a civil action that is dismiss and subsequently refiled, is irrelevant
here.
2