JOHNSON v. CONRAD, 2:14-cv-2951 KJM KJN. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150527980
Visitors: 27
Filed: May 26, 2015
Latest Update: May 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On May 22, 2015, the court conducted a settlement conference in this action. At that conference, the parties also considered potential settlement of another pending case, Johnson v. Conrad et al., 2:14-cv-596-MCE-EFB. Although neither case settled at the May 22, 2015 settlement conference, the parties discussed the possibility of conducting a further settlement conference to address a potential global resolution and settlement involving plaint
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On May 22, 2015, the court conducted a settlement conference in this action. At that conference, the parties also considered potential settlement of another pending case, Johnson v. Conrad et al., 2:14-cv-596-MCE-EFB. Although neither case settled at the May 22, 2015 settlement conference, the parties discussed the possibility of conducting a further settlement conference to address a potential global resolution and settlement involving plainti..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
On May 22, 2015, the court conducted a settlement conference in this action. At that conference, the parties also considered potential settlement of another pending case, Johnson v. Conrad et al., 2:14-cv-596-MCE-EFB. Although neither case settled at the May 22, 2015 settlement conference, the parties discussed the possibility of conducting a further settlement conference to address a potential global resolution and settlement involving plaintiff and all of Mr. Conrad's properties, including any properties owned by business entities affiliated with Mr. Conrad.
In light of the discussions at the May 22, 2015 settlement conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. No later than June 5, 2015, the parties shall file a joint status report addressing their respective positions regarding whether a potential global resolution and settlement involving plaintiff and all of Mr. Conrad's properties should be pursued at another settlement conference.
2. Assuming that the parties are agreeable to pursuing such a global resolution and settlement, the joint status report shall address:
a. Which parties, counsel, and other persons should be present at the future settlement conference.
b. What preliminary matters should be accomplished prior to such a settlement conference, including the timing for such matters.
c. Whether the parties have had any preliminary discussions regarding the structure of a potential global resolution and settlement, such as a possible consent decree, or any other matters that may help to streamline the settlement conference.
d. Proposed dates for a settlement conference within 60 days after the filing of the joint status report.
3. This action is temporarily stayed for 75 days. Although the parties at the settlement conference also agreed to stay the action of Johnson v. Conrad et al., 2:14-cv-596-MCE-EFB, that action has already been stayed by order of Judge England (see id., ECF No. 20) and thus remains subject to Judge England's stay.
4. Based on the agreement of the parties at the May 22, 2015 settlement conference, plaintiff shall not file any new lawsuits regarding Mr. Conrad's properties in the next 75 days.
5. The Clerk of Court shall file an additional copy of this order on the docket in the action of Johnson v. Conrad et al., 2:14-cv-596-MCE-EFB.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
