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)

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