Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02261/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02261-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

FREDERICK SCHIFF,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________

NARDA GILLESPIE et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________

MARK OSUNA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-03-4345 MMC

No. C-04-2261 MMC

No. C-04-2262 MMC

AMENDED ORDER REFERRING TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSEPH C.

SPERO (1) PLAINTIFFS’ “APPLICATION

FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

COMPELLING MARK SULLIVAN TO

EXECUTE THE SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

AN ORDER AFFIRMING THE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; AND AN

ORDER FOR EQUITABLE

DISTRIBUTION OF PROCEEDS

PURSUANT TO AWARD OF

ARBITRATOR IN THE ABSENCE OF AN

AGREEMENT, OR IN THE ALTERATIVE,

FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE”

AND (2) CITY’S MOTION TO ENFORCE

SETTLEMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF

MARK SULLIVAN; ORDER REFERRING

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE SPERO

CITY’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’

FEES AND COSTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF

MARK SULLIVAN

(Docket Nos. 198 and 203 in Case No.

C-03-4345; Docket Nos. 133 and 138 in

Case No. C-04-2261)

Case 3:04-cv-02261-MMC Document 150 Filed 06/29/07 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

 The reason for the renotice is not apparent from the record, but the Court

understands it was at the request of court staff.

2

On March 23, 2007, plaintiffs Narda Gillespie, Donald Woolard, Michael Zurcher,

Dennis Quinn, Michael Hughes, Gregory Mar, and Tom Feledy (“plaintiffs”) filed, in Case

No. C-04-2261, an application titled “Application for an Order to Show Cause Compelling

Mark Sullivan to Execute the Settlement Agreement or in the Alternative an Order Affirming

the Settlement Agreement; and an Order for Equitable Distribution of Proceeds Pursuant to

Award of Arbitrator in the Absence of an Agreement, or in the Alterative, for a Settlement

Conference,” and noticed the matter for hearing before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero,

who presided over the settlement conference that resulted in the settlement agreement at

issue. On April 4, 2007, plaintiffs renoticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned.1

Meanwhile, on March 26, 2007, defendant City and County of San Francisco (“City”)

filed, in Case No. C-03-4345, a “Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Against Plaintiff

Mark Sullivan,” and noticed the motion for hearing before Magistrate Judge Spero.

Finally, on May 23, 2007, the City filed, in Case No. C-03-4345, a “Motion for

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Against Plaintiff Mark Sullivan,” and noticed the motion for

hearing before Magistrate Judge Spero.

Because Magistrate Judge Spero presided over the settlement conference and

placed the settlement on the record, it is appropriate for Magistrate Judge Spero to hear all

of the above-referenced matters. Accordingly, the above-referenced application and

motions are hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Spero to be heard at the convenience of

his calendar. The May 11, 2007 hearing noticed before the undersigned is hereby

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2007 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02261-MMC Document 150 Filed 06/29/07 Page 2 of 2