Parks v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety, et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 28 Motion Exemption from Mediation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr on 3/10/2014. (Marsh, K)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:13-CV-00074-BR
HENRYC.PARKS,
Plaintiff,
V.

)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

)

KIERAN SHANAHAN, Secretary, in
official capacity North Carolina
Department ofPublic Safety, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
FRANK MARCZYK, WREN
RIVENBARK, and MARK CRABTREE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

This matter is before the court on a Motion for Exemption from Mediation filed on March
3, 2014, by Defendants North Carolina Department of Public Safety, North Carolina Department of
Corrections, Mark Crabtree, Wren Rivenbark, and Frank Marczyk. [DE-28]. Plaintiffhas responded
to the motion. [DE-29].
Defendants request exemption from mediation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 101.1 a(e) which
permits the court, in its discretion, to grant or deny a motion for exemption. See Local Civil Rule
101.1 a( e). Defendants contend that "attempts at mediation [in this case] would be futile and that the
parties would likely reach an impasse at mediation and further believes that it would not be judicially
economical to mediate the case." [DE-28] at 1. Defendants also referenced the district court's
dismissal of several of Plaintiff's claims in a January 6, 2014 order [DE-22] and stated their belief

that Plaintiffs remaining claims would be dismissed pursuant to other dispositive motions that
Defendants anticipate filing in the future.

[DE-28] at 2. Plaintiff, in his response, opposes

Defendants' motion, stating that an assertion of unwillingness to settle or the dismissal of some
claims at the outset of the litigation is not sufficient to warrant exemption. [DE-29] at 2.
The undersigned has considered fully the matters raised in Defendants' motion and is not
persuaded that any single Defendant, or the entirety of this case, should be exempt from mediation.

See Local Civil Rule 101.1 a( e) ("A general assertion that a case is not likely to settle or that
settlement possibilities are remote may not in the court's discretion adequately justify exemption.").
Accordingly, Defendants' motion is denied.
The parties are reminded ofthe scheduling order [DE-27] in this case entered February 10,
2014, which specifies that this case is subject to mandatory mediation pursuant to Local Civil Rule
101.1 a(b ). Additionally, the parties are also reminded that upon request, this court will assist with
the settlement negotiations or other ADR by making available a judge other than the trial judge to
explore these possibilities.
SO ORDERED, the 10 day of March 2014.

t-~J-~

Robert B. Jones, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

2