Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02514/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02514-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

S.S. & G., LLC, NEVADA CITY )

HOTEL, LLP, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:02-cv-2514-GEB-JFM

v. )

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a )

governmental entity; LOWELL ) ORDER

ROBINSON, an individual; NEIL H. )

ROBINSON, an individual; )

ROBINSON & SONS, a California )

general partnership; )

RIEBE’S AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLY, a )

California corporation; BART )

RIEBE, an individual; HOLDREGE & )

KULL, a California corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

) 

On January 11, 2006, the parties filed a “Stipulation for

Order Appointing Special Master and for Stay of Litigation”

(“Stipulation”). The Stipulation reveals the parties have retained

retired Superior Court Judge Richard L. Gilbert as a mediator and that

settlement discussions thus far have been productive. (Stipulation at

1-2.) The Stipulation states that prospects for settlement will be

enhanced if Judge Gilbert is appointed special master with “authority

to order mediation sessions as necessary and to compel the attendance

Case 2:02-cv-02514-JFM Document 210 Filed 01/23/06 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

1 It is assumed that the parties do not want an

earlier trial date, in order that they may have more time to

attempt settlement of this action.

2

of the [p]arties, their counsel and insurance representatives.” (Id.

at 2.) The Stipulation also states that for further mediation to be

meaningful, all remaining Rule 16 Scheduling Order dates should be

vacated in order to allow time to receive proposals from environmental

consultants and engage in additional negotiation. (Id. at 2-3.) 

The Stipulation ostensibly relies on Rule 53(a)(1)(A), which

provides that a special master may be appointed to “perform duties

consented to by the parties.” This action does not justify

appointment of a special master under Rule 53. As indicated in Rule

53(a)(1)(C), a special master need not be appointed to “address

pretrial . . . matters that can[] be addressed effectively and timely

by an available . . . magistrate judge of the district.” In addition,

I decline the parties’ invitation to compel mediation of this action,

which is a goal of the Stipulation.

Finally, I do not agree with the parties’ proposal to vacate

all remaining dates in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order that governs this

action. However, since the currently-set trial commencement date

conflicts with a criminal trial on my docket, the final pretrial

conference is continued to July 31, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. and the trial

commencement date is continued to September 12, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.1

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02514-JFM Document 210 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 2