Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04660/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04660-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALERIE TAYBRON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

SAN FRANCISCO CITY & COUNTY,

Defendant. /

No. C 99-4660 JSW (MEJ)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ORDER SCHEDULING FURTHER

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

On November 27, 2007, the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins referred this matter to the

undersigned for a settlement conference regarding the request of John Taylor, Plaintiff's counsel, for

attorney's fees and costs. (Doc. #203.) On January 9, 2008, the Court scheduled a settlement

conference to take place on March 25, 2008, at which time the Court informed the parties that they

must comply with the undersigned's Standing Order Re: Settlement Conference Procedures. (Doc.

#204.) The Standing Order provides as follows: 

All parties and their counsel of record are required to attend the

settlement conference. Each party must attend the conference having

full authority to negotiate and settle the case. 

Only upon written showing of good cause, submitted at least fourteen

calendar days prior to the settlement conference, will the Court excuse

a party or Counsel from mandatory attendance of the settlement

conference. Parties or Counsel may only be excused from attending

the settlement conference upon written authorization from Judge

James. Parties or Counsel who fail to attend the settlement conference

without authorization from Judge James may be subject to sanctions,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f). 

(Standing Order Re: Settlement Conference Procedures, ¶. 2-3.)

Both parties submitted settlement conference statements, and the Court prepared to go

forward with the settlement conference on March 25. However, on that date, Mr. Taylor failed to

appear for the conference, despite the fact that its sole purpose was to resolve the dispute regarding

Case 3:99-cv-04660-JSW Document 210 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

his request for fees and costs. Instead, Dennis Vann, another attorney, appeared on his behalf. Not

only is Mr. Vann not counsel of record in this matter, but he informed the Court that he did not have

complete authority to settle.

This blatant disregard for the Court's rules, as well as an utter lack of respect for the Court's

and opposing counsel's time, flies in the face of Mr. Taylor's obligations as a practicing attorney in

this district. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Mr. Taylor to show cause why sanctions should not

be imposed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f). Specifically, Mr. Taylor shall address

the following: (1) his failure to appear at the March 25 settlement conference as required by the

undersigned's standing order and Rule 16(f); (2) his failure to submit a written request, at least

fourteen calendar days prior to the settlement conference, to be excused from his mandatory

attendance of the settlement conference; and (3) his decision to send an attorney who is not counsel

of record, and who was substantially unprepared to participate in any negotiations because he lacked

complete authority to settle the case, in violation of the undersigned's standing order and Rule

16(f)(1).

Mr. Taylor shall e-file a responsive declaration by April 3, 2008. However, the Court shall

not schedule a hearing on the matter at this time; instead, the parties shall appear for a Further

Settlement Conference on May 7, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in the undersigned's chambers. The parties

shall comply with the undersigned's standing order. The Court shall reserve the issue of sanctions

for determination after the further settlement conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2008 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:99-cv-04660-JSW Document 210 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 2