Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04345/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04345-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; VACATING

DISMISSAL ORDERS; GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN PART

GILLESPIE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL MARK SULLIVAN TO

EXECUTE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

AND FOR EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION

OF SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS;

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT;

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

AGAINST 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 3:03-cv-04345-MMC Document 210 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 3
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

On July 12, 2007, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued a report and

recommendation with respect to the following motions: (1) the motion filed March 23, 2007,

in case No. C-04-2261, by plaintiffs Narda Gillespie, Donald Woolard, Michael Zurcher,

Dennis Quinn, Michael Hughes, Gregory Mar, and Tom Feledy (“Gillespie plaintiffs”), 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 Alternative, for a Settlement Conference” (“Gillespie

Motion”); (2) the motion filed March 26, 2007, in Case No. C-03-4345, by defendant City

and County of San Francisco (“City”), titled “Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

Against Plaintiff Mark Sullivan” (“City’s Motion to Enforce”); and (3) the motion filed May 23,

2007, in Case No. C-03-4345, by the City, titled “Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Against Plaintiff Mark Sullivan” (“City’s Sanctions Motion”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), any objections thereto were required to be filed within ten days. To date, no

objections have been filed.

Having reviewed the matter de novo, the Court, for the reasons expressed therein,

hereby ADOPTS the report and recommendation. 

Accordingly,

1. The orders dismissing the three above-titled actions are hereby VACATED and

the instant actions are hereby restored to the Court’s calendar.

2. The Gillespie Motion is hereby GRANTED to the extent the Gillespie plaintiffs

seek an order enforcing the settlement agreement; the City’s Motion to Enforce also is

hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff Mark Sullivan is hereby ordered to execute the settlement

agreement within fourteen days of the date of this order.

3. In all other respects, the Gillespie Motion is hereby DENIED.

4. The City’s Sanctions Motion is hereby DENIED.

5. The parties are hereby directed to notify the Court within seven days of approval

of the settlement by the appropriate agencies. When such notification is received, the

Case 3:03-cv-04345-MMC Document 210 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Court will dismiss the instant actions with prejudice.

6. If the appropriate agencies do not approve the settlement, the parties shall

appear for a case management conference on January 11, 2008 at 10:30 a.m., and shall

file a joint case management statement in each of the above-titled actions no later than

January 4, 2008. If approval of the settlement is still pending at that time, the Court will,

upon motion by any party, grant a continuance of the case management conference.

7. If plaintiffs wish to participate in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge

Spero with respect to resolving their disputes regarding distribution of the settlement

proceeds, plaintiffs shall contact Magistrate Judge Spero’s chambers.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 198 and 203 in Case No. C-03-4345; Docket

Nos. 133 and 138 in Case No. C-04-2261.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04345-MMC Document 210 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 3