Edwards v. Southcrest, L.L.C.
Filing
31
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary ; denying 28 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (kjp, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LAURA EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHCREST. L.L.C.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 11-CV-017-CVE-TLW
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Southcrest, L.L.C.’s (“Southcrest”)
Unopposed Application to Permit its Representative to Appear at Settlement
Conference Via Telephone. [Dkt. No. 28]. The Settlement Conference at issue is
scheduled for Oct. 18, 2011, before an Adjunct Settlement Judge.
Southcrest states that Sherill Peters (“Peters”), “the individual with
settlement authority in this case”, is “unable to travel from Franklin, TN, to
attend the October Settlement Conference. [Dkt No. 28 at 1]. Subsequent to the
filing of the Unopposed Application, Defendant informed the Court that “Due to
the litigation schedules of several other cases involving CHS’s [Community
Health Systems] affiliate’s hospitals, travel to Tulsa, Oklahoma from Franklin,
Tennessee will be very difficult for Ms. Peters around October 18, 2011.”
The Court has considered Defendant’s request and DENIES the
Application.
1
It is fundamental to the mediation process that parties with settlement
authority meet face-to-face to attempt to resolve their dispute. Experience has
established that settlement conferences are more often successful when the
parties physically meet and deal with each other. Thus, the Court’s Settlement
Conference Order requires the attendance of all parties and counsel, noting that
having a client with settlement authority available by telephone “is generally not
an acceptable alternative.” [Dkt. No. 19, ¶I(B)].
In extraordinary circumstances, the Court has granted relief from this
requirement of physical attendance at the settlement conference; however, there
is nothing about Defendant’s Application that suggests this is an extraordinary
case. The Settlement Conference is still 5½ months away. Perhaps Peters’
litigation schedule will ease by then. If that clearly will not happen, rescheduling
the conference for a more appropriate date would be an obvious alternative.
For these reasons, the Defendant’s Unopposed Application is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of May 2011.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?