K W et al v. Armstrong et al

Filing 420

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: Class Motion for ADR Order (Dkt. 391 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill.(ms)

Case 1:12-cv-00022-BLW Document 420 Filed 11/04/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
K.W., by his next friend D.W, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD ARMSTRONG, in his
official capacity) as Director of the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare, et al.,

Case No. 1:12-cv-00022-BLW
Case No. 3:12-cv-00058-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Defendant.
_________________________________
TOBY SCHULTZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICHARD ARMSTRONG, et al.
Defendants.

Pending before the Court is the Class’s Motion for ADR Order (Dkt. 391). After
reviewing the parties’ briefing, I concur with the Plaintiffs that there is a need to resolve
the parties’ ongoing dispute concerning a proper schedule to complete settlement
implementation. But I am not persuaded that some form of Alternative Dispute
Resolution is the best means of doing so. In my experience, further mediation of
settlement agreements results in further complications that only prolong implementation
of the parties’ settlement. For that reason, I have concluded that a better course of action
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Case 1:12-cv-00022-BLW Document 420 Filed 11/04/20 Page 2 of 2

is to set a hearing on that issue, 1 set up a briefing schedule, and resolve the disputed issue
after hearing from both parties. The Court will set the hearing and the related briefing
schedule in a separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 4, 2020
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
United States District Judge

Arguing that it is unworkable, the Defendants have objected to the Court’s June 4, 2020 order
(Dkt. 396) requiring a two-track deadline for implementation of the settlement agreement. See
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Request for ADR, Dkt. 398). The Court will also resolve that
objection as part of the scheduled hearing.
1

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2