Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnson v. Guerrero, 2:16-cv-0445-MCE-AC. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180918a59 Visitors: 22
Filed: Sep. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302. On January 16, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 25. Neither party filed objections to the findin
More

ORDER

Plaintiff filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302.

On January 16, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 25. Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of this case, and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 16, 2018, are ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgement (ECF No. 12) is DENIED;

3. Defendants' motions for relief from default (ECF No. 17, 18, 19) are GRANTED;

4. This action is STAYED pending further order from the Court;

5. The parties are directed to promptly meet and confer to discuss settlement of this action. Settlement discussions require focus and preparations and should involve the attorneys who will try the case on any terms. Plaintiff should initiate settlement discussions by providing a written itemization of damages and a meaningful settlement demand that includes an explanation of why the demand is appropriate. Defendant should respond with an acceptance of the offer, or with a meaningful counteroffer that includes an explanation of why the counteroffer is reasonable. The parties should continue in this way until they reach settlement or have exhausted informal settlement efforts.

6. If the parties have not reached a settlement within 45 days of the date of this order, the parties shall initiate participation in the Court's Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program ("VDRP") by Court's VDRP administrator, Sujean Park, at (916) 930-4278 or Spark@caed.uscourts.gov.

7. The parties shall carefully review and comply with Local Rule 271, which outlines the specifications and requirements of VDRP.

8. No later than fourteen (14) days after completion of the VDRP session, the parties shall jointly file their VDRP Completion Report, consistent with Local Rule 271(o).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer