Garcia v. Kim
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-09789
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Garcia v. Kim, Judge Tse partly granted administrative-relief motions, ordered Kim to make disclosures and propose settlement dates, and reassigned the case.
Jonggan Kim was ordered to serve initial disclosures and provide settlement-meeting dates. The case was directed to be reassigned to a district judge, affecting future proceedings and filings.
What happened
In Garcia v. Kim, Jonggan Kim had not participated in a required settlement meeting or served required initial disclosures. The order also noted that two other defendants had not appeared, and that the Clerk had entered default against one of them.
The court ordered Kim to serve initial disclosures and give Garcia’s counsel three dates before September 27, 2022, when he could attend a settlement meeting. The court warned that noncompliance could lead to sanctions but did not impose sanctions at that time. It also directed the Clerk to reassign the case to a district judge.
Judge Alex G. Tse issued the order on August 22, 2022, granting in part the motions for administrative relief. The order stated that the reassignment was necessary because all parties had not appeared and consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Kim · No. 3:21-cv-09789
- Vince Chhabria
- Aug. 22, 2022
Background
Orlando Garcia sued Jonggan Kim and other defendants. The court had adopted General Order 56, which requires participation in a settlement meeting and service of initial disclosures before that meeting. The order states that Kim had not complied with those requirements. It also states that two of the three defendants had not appeared and that the Clerk had entered default against one of them.
Orders concerning Kim
The court granted in part the motions for administrative relief. It ordered Kim to serve his initial disclosures and provide Garcia’s counsel with three dates on which he was available for a settlement meeting. All three dates had to be before September 27, 2022, and the disclosures and dates had to be provided by September 5, 2022. The court warned that failure to comply with the order or General Order 56 could result in sanctions, but stated that sanctions would not be imposed at that time.
Reassignment
Because all parties had not appeared and consented to a magistrate judge’s authority to decide dispositive motions—motions that could resolve claims—or preside over trial, Judge Alex G. Tse stated that he could not perform those functions. The Clerk was directed to reassign the case to a district judge, and future filings were to be addressed to that judge.
Disposition
The order granted in part the motions for administrative relief, required Kim to complete the specified settlement-related obligations, declined to impose sanctions at that time, and directed reassignment to a district judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.