Johnson v. Camden Almaden, LLC, et al

Filing 15

Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 12 Motion for Administrative Relief. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2021)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SCOTT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.

Case No. 20-CV-06514-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
Re: Dkt. No. 12

CAMDEN ALMADEN, LLC, California
Limited Liability Company; and Does 1–10,
Defendants.

17
18

On December 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for administrative relief. ECF

19

No. 12 (“Motion”). Plaintiff asks the Court to “require defense counsel to provide dates to

20

schedule the settlement meeting via videoconference as required by General Order 56, Para 8.”

21

Plaintiff’s counsel avers that as of December 28, 2020, defense counsel had “not provided

22

available dates to conduct a formal settlement meeting.” Price Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 12-1.

23

On January 4, 2021, Defendant Camden Almaden, LLC filed its opposition to the Motion.

24

ECF No. 13. Defendant argues that a settlement meeting under General Order 56 is unnecessary

25

because defense counsel “has engaged in good faith settlement discussions . . . and requested the

26

form of settlement from [P]laintiff multiple times by phone and email.” Id. at 1. To support its

27

opposition, Defendant attaches emails between defense counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel. These
1

28

Case No. 20-CV-06514-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1

emails show that defense counsel ignored three requests to schedule a settlement meeting pursuant

2

to General Order 56. ECF No. 13-1 at 16–19. Defense counsel’s response to scheduling requests

3

was to repeatedly ask Plaintiff’s counsel about settlement terms. Id.

4

Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this

5

case, the Court GRANTS the Motion. General Order No. 56 § 8 as amended (“GO 56”) plainly

6

requires the parties to participate in a settlement meeting within 35 days of the joint site inspection

7

(i.e., within 95 days of service of the complaint). See GO 56 § 8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 1, 2020), as

8

amended by Second Amended Notice (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020),

9

https://cand.uscourts.gov/rules/general-orders/; see also ECF No. 5 (scheduling order). GO 56
specifically states that “[n]either the joint site inspection nor the settlement meeting may be

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

conducted by telephone or email.” Second Amended Notice at 2 (emphasis added). Here,

12

Defendant has tried to do what GO 56 expressly forbids. Defense counsel’s emails with Plaintiff’s

13

counsel are no substitute for the settlement videoconference between “[t]he parties themselves”

14

under GO 56 § 8 as amended.

15

Furthermore, Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with at least three dates for scheduling a

16

settlement meeting. Defendant has already noted its availability on January 20, 2021. ECF No. 13

17

at 2. Thus, the parties shall complete the settlement meeting by January 20, 2021. By January 27,

18

2021, “the parties shall file either the form Notice of Settlement of ADA Access Case or the form

19

Notice of Need for Mediation and Certification of Counsel.” GO 56 § 9; see Civil Forms,

20

https://cand.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-forms/ (links to forms). Extensions to these deadlines will be

21

disfavored. The deadline for completing the settlement meeting was December 29, 2020 because

22

Plaintiff served the complaint on September 25, 2020. ECF No. 10 at 1.

23

Lastly, the Court admonishes the parties to avoid needlessly involving the Court in

24

procedural disputes. GO 56 and this case’s scheduling order (ECF No. 5) detail the procedures for

25

litigating the instant case.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

2
Case No. 20-CV-06514-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

1
2
3

Dated: January 6, 2021
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
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

3
Case No. 20-CV-06514-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF