Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02370/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02370-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Householder Group, LLLP, an

Arizona Limited Liability Limited

Partnership,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Charles Van Mason, an individual; Jeff

Deboer, an individual,

Defendants. _________________________________

Charles Van Mason, an individual and Jeff

Deboer, an individual,

Counterclaimants,

v.

The Householder Group, LLLP, an

Arizona Limited Liability Limited

Partnership,

Counterdefendant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2370-PHX-MHM

No. CV-10-0918-PHX-MHM

 (Consolidated)

ORDER

The Court has received the parties’ Joint Motion for Additional Time for

the Settlement Conference, requesting “additional time for the settlement conference . . .

Counsel specifically request that the Settlement Conference commence at or about 9:00

a.m. on Tuesday, November 16, 2010, and continue until 5:00 pm, or until such time as

the Court determines.” (Doc. 46)

Case 2:09-cv-02370-SMM Document 47 Filed 09/27/10 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 No one has informed the settlement conference Judge or his chambers that there is

a consolidated case with a new party. At this time, the November 16, 2010 settlement

conference does not include the issues and Plaintiff in No. CV-10-0918-PHX-MHM. If the

parties in No. CV-10-0918-PHX-MHM jointly agree to participate in the same settlement

conference with the parties in No. CV-09-2370-PHX-MHM or if the parties in No. CV09-2370-PHX-MHM desire to postpone the November 16, 2010 settlement conference until

after Judge Murguia rules on the pending motion for partial summary judgment, as she

directed, counsel shall promptly file a motion and comply with LRCiv 40.2(d). 

- 2 -

I. Background

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on November 12, 2009 and Defendants

answered and counterclaimed on January 19, 2010. (Docs. 1, 14) At the April 20, 2010

Rule 16 scheduling conference, the assigned District Judge, the Honorable Mary H. 

Murguia, “referr[ed] this matter to a magistrate judge for the purpose of conducting a

settlement conference after the motion for partial summary judgment is decided, which

the Court will attempt to decide by October, 2010. If the motion is decided this summer

or fall, the Court requests the settlement conference be accelerated.” (Doc. 30) The

reference to a summary judgment motion in the text-only minute entry is to defense

counsel’s oral “motion for leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment re:

resolution of liquidated damages.” (Id.) On the same date, the Clerk randomly assigned

the settlement conference to the undersigned Magistrate Judge.

As authorized by Judge Murguia, Defendants filed a summary judgment

motion on June 16, 2010, moving Judge Murguia “for an order granting partial summary

judgment on the issue of [Plaintiff’s] claim for liquidated damages, barring THG from

re-litigating this issue.” (Doc. 38 at 6) All briefing on this summary judgment motion has

been filed and the motion is under advisement. (Docs. 44-45) On May 21, 2010, Judge

Murguia consolidated this case (No. CV-09-2370- PHX-MHM) with another case, No.

CV- 10- 0918-PHX-MHM.1 (Doc. 36) 

The April 27, 2010 settlement conference order sets the subject settlement

conference for Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. and indicates that “[t]he Court

Case 2:09-cv-02370-SMM Document 47 Filed 09/27/10 Page 2 of 4
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

 It is unclear from the Joint Case Management Report whether Judge Murguia

addressed this issue at the Rule 16 conference. The scheduling order makes clear that “[n]o

party may file more than one motion for summary judgment under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 56 unless permission is first obtained, by joint telephone call, from the Court.”

(Doc. 34 at 4)

- 3 -

has allocated 2 hours for the Settlement Conference or longer if meaningful progress is

being made towards settlement.” (Doc. 32 at 3)

The parties’ Joint Case Management Report indicates, inter alia, that

“Defendants request that [they] be permitted to file another Motion for Summary Judgment after the completion of discovery [and] will seek dismissal of all other causes of

action, including the claims for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets.”2

(Doc. 28 at 7) The file reflects that no written or deposition discovery has been taken to

date except Defendants’ initial disclosures, request for admission, and non-uniform

interrogatories. (Docs. 21, 27) There is no proof in the file that Plaintiff has engaged in

any discovery except the scheduling order confirms that “[i]nitial disclosures required by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), have already been exchanged.” (Doc. 34 at 1) 

II. Discussion

After considering the absence of any depositions of the key parties and

corporate representatives to date, the relatively little development of this case, and

Defendants’ expressed desire to file more summary judgment motions, the Court

concludes that a one-half day settlement conference is more than sufficient to conduct a

meaningful, productive settlement conference provided, of course, the parties fully

comply with all aspects of the Court’s April 27, 2010 settlement conference order. At the

settlement conference, the Court will invoke a “cut-to-the-chase” procedure designed to

reduce or eliminate settlement posturing during each private caucus. The Court will,

however, move the start time up to 1:00 p.m. to ensure, at least, one additional hour

provided, of course, there is meaningful progress during the afternoon toward a mutual

voluntary resolution of this case. Although the extremely busy magistrate judges of this

Case 2:09-cv-02370-SMM Document 47 Filed 09/27/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

District do not have the time to devote a full day to this case as counsel request, the

parties are free to consider a privately-retained local mediator, at minimum rates

beginning at or near $400.00 per hour, who will likely allow the parties to participate in a

private mediation as long as the parties desire.

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Additional Time for the

Settlement Conference, doc. 46, is GRANTED in part. The start time for the Tuesday,

November 16, 2010 settlement conference shall be 1:00 p.m. (Arizona time). All other

requested relief is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all orders in the April 27, 2010 settlement conference order other than the start time are hereby AFFIRMED.

Dated this 27th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02370-SMM Document 47 Filed 09/27/10 Page 4 of 4