High v. JIK, Inc.,et al.,

Filing 54

ORDER denying 49 Motion for Settlement Conference; denying as moot 53 Motion to Respond. The hearing on Motion for Settlement Conference is VACATED. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/3/13.(bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02373-BNB-KLM
MAKYNNA HIGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
JIK, INC., a Colorado corporation, d/b/a Denny’s Restaurant,
JUN KIM, and
DAN BYRNES,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the following:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Settlement Conference [Doc. # 49, filed 3/12/2013] (the

“Motion for Settlement Conference”); and
(2)

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Memorandum Regarding Plaintiff’s

Motion for Settlement Conference [Doc. # 53, filed 4/3/2013] (the “Motion to Respond”).
Court sponsored alternative dispute resolution is controlled by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6.
It provides that a district judge or magistrate judge exercising consent jurisdiction “may direct
the parties to a suit to engage in an early neutral evaluation or other alternative dispute resolution
proceeding.” D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6A. The rule was changed effective December 2011 to limit
the circumstances under which court resources are expended on settlement efforts and to make
those resources available only when the presiding judge determines it is appropriate.
Although the Motion for Settlement Conference now is unopposed, this case does not
appear to be appropriate for the expenditure of court resources on settlement. Settlement

requires the willingness and cooperation of all parties. Here, the defendants did not respond to
the plaintiff’s inquiries concerning requesting a settlement conference; did not comply with my
minute order [Doc. # 50] requiring a response to the Motion for Settlement Conference; and have
belatedly joined in the Motion for Settlement Conference apparently only to avoid the cost and
inconvenience of appearing at a hearing on the Motion for Settlement Conference. In view of
these facts, I conclude that ordering the parties to appear at a court sponsored settlement
conference would be a waste of the court’s resources.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

The Motion for Settlement Conference [Doc. # 49] is DENIED;

(2)

The Motion to Respond [Doc. # 53] is DENIED as moot; and

(3)

The hearing on the Motion for Settlement Conference set for April 8, 2013, at

11:00 a.m., is VACATED.
Dated April 3, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2