Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

NAROG v. CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, 13-cv-03237-DMR. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150408a37 Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 07, 2015
Summary: ORDER DONNA M. RYU , Magistrate Judge . The parties have attended three settlement conferences before Judge Beeler. The first settlement conference, held on December 8, 2014, lasted seven hours and thirty minutes. See Docket No. 88. The second settlement conference, held on February 6, 2015, lasted five hours. See Docket No. 98. The parties attended a third settlement conference before Judge Beeler on March 31, 2015, during which the case settled. See Docket No. 115. The settlement co
More

ORDER

The parties have attended three settlement conferences before Judge Beeler. The first settlement conference, held on December 8, 2014, lasted seven hours and thirty minutes. See Docket No. 88. The second settlement conference, held on February 6, 2015, lasted five hours. See Docket No. 98. The parties attended a third settlement conference before Judge Beeler on March 31, 2015, during which the case settled. See Docket No. 115. The settlement conference was attended by all parties and counsel. It lasted five hours. At the conclusion, the parties indicated that they reached a full settlement and submitted a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, which this court signed. Docket Nos. 113, 114. All parties signed the settlement agreement.

Plaintiff has now filed an "Opposition," stating that Plaintiff "disput[es] the settlement conference" because he was "intimidated and coerced into signing a [settlement] against his best interest," "unable to make any decisions because of the medications and disabilities [he] was enduring at the time," and "prevented from consulting with another person for advice and . . . denied additional time to review the documents and terms." Docket No. 116.

Prior to the settlement conference, on March 20, 2015, this court conducted an ex parte hearing on a motion by Plaintiff's counsel to withdraw from this case. Plaintiff and his counsel, but no other parties or counsel, attended the ex parte hearing. Without revealing the contents of that hearing, based on repeated remarks by Plaintiff, this court is convinced that Plaintiff had full confidence in his counsel.

Under these circumstances, Plaintiff's assertions that he was pressured to sign the settlement agreement without being able to fully consider his options are unavailing. The case has been settled and dismissed with prejudice; a subsequent change of mind does not alter this outcome. The case is closed.

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