Lother v. City of Mountain View
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:19-cv-05848
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lother v. City of Mountain View, Judge Demarchi set deadlines after a tentative settlement notice but did not approve the settlement.
The plaintiffs, the City of Mountain View and the other defendants, including defendants who had not been served or appeared, and the parties’ case schedule.
What happened
In Lother v. City of Mountain View, the parties told the court they had agreed to settle the case, subject to approval of the plaintiffs’ anticipated petition for a minor’s compromise. The court did not approve the settlement in this order.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file that petition by January 21, 2020. It moved the initial case management conference to March 31, 2020, and required the parties’ joint case management statement by March 24, 2020. Other related deadlines were adjusted accordingly.
The court also ordered parties who had not yet done so to file either consent or refusal to proceed before a magistrate judge by January 7, 2020. Judge Demarchi further ordered the plaintiffs to serve the order on parties who had not appeared and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- Lother v. City of Mountain View · No. 5:19-cv-05848
- Virginia Demarchi
- Dec. 16, 2019
Background
The parties filed a notice stating that they had agreed to settle the matter, subject to approval of the plaintiffs’ anticipated petition for a minor’s compromise. The order does not state that the court approved the settlement.
Orders
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file the petition for a minor’s compromise by January 21, 2020. It continued the initial case management conference to March 31, 2020, at 1:30 p.m., and set March 24, 2020, as the deadline for the parties’ joint case management statement. The court also adjusted all other related deadlines from its earlier scheduling order accordingly.
The court advised that all named parties, including defendants who had not been served, must consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction before a magistrate judge may hear and decide the case. Because the court did not have consent from all parties, it ordered parties who had not yet filed a consent or declination to do so by January 7, 2020. The court stated that parties could withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences.
The court also ordered the plaintiffs to serve a copy of the order on all parties who had not appeared and file proof of service.
Disposition
This was an administrative and scheduling order based on the parties’ notice of tentative settlement. It did not decide the underlying claims or state that the settlement was finally approved. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered the order on December 16, 2019.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.