North Carolina Human Relations Commission v. Forrest Hills Investments, LLC, et al

Filing 17

ORDER that the 16 "Consent MOTION for Judicial Settlement Conference and for Remote Means" are DENIED. The parties are DIRECTED to file a notice identifying the mediator they have selected, or a report describing why they have been unable to agree on a mediator, as referenced by the 12 Pretrial Order, no later than 11/14/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 11/4/2022. (khm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:22-cv-00142-MR-WCM
THE NORTH CAROLINA HUMAN
RELATIONS COMMISSION

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

on behalf of

Kathleen Bird
Plaintiff,
v.
FORREST HILLS
INVESTMENTS, LLC,
JAMIE HOPE,
TERESA SCHENK,
DRS REALTY COMPANY, and
DRS COMMUNITIES,

ORDER

)
)
)

Defendants.
_______________________________

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ “Consent Motions for
Judicial Settlement Conference and for Remote Means” (the “Motion for
Judicial Settlement Conference” Doc. 16), by which the parties request that a
judicial settlement conference be conducted (by remote means) by February 28,
2023.
The Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan (the “Pretrial Order”),
which was entered in this matter on October 6, 2022, set a deadline of
November 2, 2022 for the parties to designate a mediator and a deadline of
May 30, 2023 for the parties to complete a mediated settlement conference.

1

Doc. 12.
Subsequently, on October 21, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
which seeks the dismissal of the third and fourth claims of Plaintiff-Intervenor
Kathleen Bird. Doc. 14. That Motion to Dismiss remains pending.
The parties did not file by the November 2 deadline a notice identifying
the mediator they had selected, or a report describing the reasons they had
been unable to agree on a mediator. Instead, on that date, the parties filed the
Motion for Judicial Settlement Conference. Consequently, it appears that the
parties now request that the Court conduct a settlement conference (either in
lieu of or in addition to) the mediation referenced by the Pretrial Order.
The Pretrial Order directs that the parties conduct a mediated
settlement conference before a specific deadline; it does not prohibit them from
engaging in mediation immediately or on multiple occasions prior to the
deadline. The parties are, of course, also free to discuss settlement without the
assistance of a mediator, and it appears that they have already been doing so
as the Motion for Judicial Settlement Conference states that the parties believe
“there is a real possibility of reaching a mediated settlement in this case” and
that they “have already exchanged a proposed consent decree in an effort to
jump start such a settlement.” Doc. 16 at 2.
Using limited judicial resources for the purpose of conducting a judicial
settlement conference, however, is not warranted in these circumstances.
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. The Consent Motions for Judicial Settlement Conference and for
Remote Means (Doc. 16) are DENIED.
2. The parties are DIRECTED to file a notice identifying the mediator
they have selected, or a report describing why they have been unable
to agree on a mediator, as referenced by the Pretrial Order, no later
than November 14, 2022.

Signed: November 4, 2022

3