Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02253/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02253-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KIMBERLY COX,

Plaintiff,

v.

OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02253-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

[Re: ECF 90]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to continue the parties’ Rule 26 

requirements and the Initial Case Management Conference (“CMC”), currently set for February 4, 

2016. ECF 90. In addition, Plaintiff asks the Court to relieve the parties from automatic referral to 

the ADR Multi-Option Program. Id. No Defendant has opposed this Administrative Motion.

The timing of parties’ Rule 26 requirements flows from the date of the Initial CMC. See 

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(f)(1) (requiring parties to confer “at least 21 days before a scheduling 

conference is to be held”); Fed R. Civ. Pro. 26(a)(1)(c)(“[a] party must make the initial disclosures 

at or within 14 days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set by 

stipulation or court order”). Finding sufficient reason to continue the CMC, the Court GRANTS 

Plaintiff’s request to continue the CMC and the Rule 26 requirements. The Court SETS the Initial 

Case Management Conference for April 7, 2016 at 11:00 AM.

On August 15, 2015, the Court issued an order referring this action to the ADR Unit for a 

telephone conference to assess this case’s suitability for mediation or a settlement conference 

because it is foreclosure-related. ECF 47. See also Civ. L.R. 16-8; ADR L.R. 2-3. Plaintiff now

moves the Court to relieve the parties from these obligations, arguing that the previous ADR 

conference was unfruitful and contending that future ones will be as well, but Plaintiff offers no 

Case 5:15-cv-02253-BLF Document 92 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

authority for granting such relief.1Plaintiff also notes that she “was unable to obtain a stipulation” 

for this request. In light of this district’s policy “to assist parties involved in civil litigation to 

resolve their disputes in a just, timely and cost-effective manner,” see Civ. L.R. 16-8(a), the Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s administrative motion for relief from referral to the ADR Multi-Option 

Program.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1

Plaintiff states that this portion of her motion is “pursuant to Local Rule 3-3(c),” but that Rule, 

which governs the relation of a civil action that is dismiss and subsequently refiled, is irrelevant 

here.

Case 5:15-cv-02253-BLF Document 92 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 2