Federal National Mortgage Association v. Takas

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Denying 15 Defendant's and Third Party Plaintiff's Request to Refer this Matter to Mediation with the Court's ADR Program. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 5/5/17. (dla)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S AND THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO REFER THIS MATTER TO MEDIATION WITH THE COURT’S ADR PROGRAM v. Case No. 2:17-cv-2 04 DAK KRIS TAKAS, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. District Judge Dale Kimball Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells Pending before the court is Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff Kris Takas’ Motion to Refer this Matter to Mediation with this Court's ADR Program. 1 The court finds oral argument would not be helpful on the motion and decides it on the basis of the briefing before it. 2 Having reviewed Ms. Takas’ motion the court finds it contains arguments that are more appropriate for a decision on the merits of this case and applicable to the unlawful detainer controversy. They do not support a referral to the court’s ADR program. For example, Ms. Takas’ argues that Plaintiff’s “complaint of unlawful detainer ... must be dismissed.” 3 And, asserts that Utah’s unlawful detainer statute is a “’severe remedy, and … it must be strictly complied with before the cause of action may be maintained.’” 4 There are no arguments that the parties are somehow close to an agreement or that a referral to the ADR program would be more efficient in resolving the parties’ claims. 1 Docket no. 15. 2 DUCivR 7-1. 3 Mtn. p. 5, docket no. 15 (emphasis omitted). 4 Id. p. 6 (quoting Parkside Salt Lake Corp v. Insure-Rite, Inc., 37 P.3d 1202, 1206 (2001) (emphasis omitted). In addition, Plaintiff’s opposition notes the long history of settlement negotiations in this matter and the positions of the parties that appear to be set in stone at this point. Plaintiff argues a referral to the ADR program would simply “waste further time and money ….” 5 The court agrees and finds there is no basis to refer this matter to the court’s ADR program. Ms. Takas’ motion therefore is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 5 May 2017. Brooke C. Wells United States Magistrate Judge 5 Op. p. 3. 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?