Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03209/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03209-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIA POWELL KELLER-MCINTYRE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant

 /

No. C-06-3209 MMC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CANCEL

ADR PHONE CONFERENCE

Before the Court is plaintiff Julia Powell Keller-McIntyre’s motion, filed August 10,

2006, to cancel the ADR telephone conference scheduled for August 16, 2006. Plaintiff

has failed to show good cause for the requested cancellation. 

In particular, although plaintiff contends, without citation to a declaration, that she

recently was “threatened with a car accident,” she submits no evidence that she suffered

any injuries as a result thereof, much less injuries significant enough to preclude her from

being able to participate in the telephone conference. Plaintiff’s ability to prepare the

instant motion strongly suggests that she is capable of participating in the telephone

conference.

Additionally, plaintiff contends, without citation to authority, that the telephone

conference should be cancelled because the damages sought in the instant lawsuit are in

excess of ADR limits. Plaintiff may be referring to 28 U.S.C. § 654, which precludes the

district court from referring a case to court-sponsored arbitration where “the relief sought

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 48 Filed 08/10/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

consists of money damages in an amount greater than $150,000.” See 28 U.S.C. § 654. 

Section 654 does not bar the district court from requiring the parties in such a case to

participate in other alternative dispute resolution procedures, however, such as early

neutral evaluation, mediation, or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge. 

Indeed, the district court “shall . . . require that litigants in all civil cases consider the use of

an alternative dispute resolution procedure at an appropriate stage in the litigation.” See 28

U.S.C. § 652(a) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 48 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 2