Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00773/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00773-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of 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

Double J Investment, LLC, an Arizona 

limited liability company; et al, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Automation, Control and Information 

Systems Corporation, etc; et al, 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-773-PHX-SRB 

ORDER 

 On March 4, 2014, the assigned District Judge referred this case to the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference. 

(Doc. 37) In response to the referral, a settlement conference order was entered on March 

31, 2014, setting the settlement conference for May 15, 2014. 

 As authorized in the settlement conference order, Defendant Automation, Control 

and Information Systems Corporation (“ACIS”) filed a Motion to Vacate the Settlement 

Conference, dated May 1, 2014, indicating, among other things, that, “[A]CIS believes 

that conducting the settlement conference would be a futile act at this time, resulting in a 

waste of time and money, and inconsistent with Rule 1, Fed.R.Civ.P.” (Doc. 49 at 2) 

Counsel for ACIS believes that the settlement conference could be more productive and 

lead to a resolution of this matter if conducted after discovery is completed. (Id.) 

Discovery ends in this case on June 20, 2014. (Doc. 39 at 5) 

 Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ Motion, claiming it “is a delay tactic . . . , 

[s]ubstantial discovery has been conducted in this case” and there is no “reasonable 

Case 2:13-cv-00773-DJH Document 51 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

justification to delay the settlement conference.” (Doc. 50 at 1) Plaintiffs claim 

“Defendants have served Plaintiffs with a total of 153 requests for production, 60 

interrogatories, and 60 requests for admission, with 20 of the requests outstanding as the 

time to respond has not yet passed. Plaintiffs have produced 1,337 pages of documents 

and Defendants have produced 1,336 pages of documents.” (Id. at 4) 

 After review of the parties’ briefing, it is clear that Defendants believe that 

conducting a settlement conference at this time would be a waste of time and limited 

resources and going forward with the settlement conference at this time would be 

inconsistent with Rule 1, Fed.R.Civ.P. (the civil procedural “rules . . . should be 

construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of 

every action and proceeding.”). Assuming arguendo that Defendants’ expressed reason 

for vacating the settlement conference is disingenuous and their primary motivation is the 

disparity between the parties on reaching a voluntary settlement, conducting a settlement 

conference at this time and under the current environment is no less inappropriate. 

 Although the law favors the voluntary settlement of civil suits, ABKCO Music, 

Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 722 F.2d 988, 997 (2d Cir. 1983), it does not sanction 

efforts by trial or settlement judges to effect settlements through coercion. Del Rio v. 

Northern Blower Co., 574 F.2d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 1978) (citing Wolff v. Laverne, Inc., 17 

A.D.2d 213, 233 N.Y.S.2d 555 (1962)). 

[Courts] view with disfavor all pressure tactics whether directly or obliquely, to coerce settlement by litigants and their counsel. Failure to concur in what the Justice presiding may consider an adequate settlement should not result in an 

imposition upon a litigant or his counsel, who reject it, of any retributive sanctions not specifically authorized by law. 

Best Western Intern., Inc. v. Melbourne Hotel Investors, LLC, 2008 WL 2945513, at *1 

(D. Ariz. July 28, 2008) (citation omitted). In short, any pressure tactics to coerce 

settlement are simply not permissible. See Schunk v. Schunk, 84 A.D.2d 904, 905, 446 

N.Y.S.2d 672 (1981); Chomski v. Alston Cab Co., 32 A.D.2d 627, 299 N.Y.S.2d 896 

(1969). “[A settlement] judge must not compel agreement by arbitrary use of his power 

Case 2:13-cv-00773-DJH Document 51 Filed 05/07/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

and the attorney must not meekly submit to a judge’s suggestion, though it be strongly 

urged.” Brooks v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 92 F.2d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1937); see

also Nordyke v. King, 676 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2012) (Chief Judge Kozinski, dissenting) 

(courts “[o]verstep our authority by forcing the parties to spend time and money engaging 

in a mediation charade. Our job is to decide the case, and do so promptly. This delay 

serves no useful purpose; it only makes us look foolish. I want no part of it.”). 

 “[T]he district court has broad authority to compel participation in mandatory 

settlement conference.” United States v. U.S. Dist. Court, 694 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c)(1), which expressly 

authorizes civil settlement conferences, “was not designed as a means for clubbing the 

parties - or one of them - into an involuntary compromise.” Kothe v. Smith, 771 F.2d 667, 

669 (2nd Cir. 1985). The purpose of Rule 16, Fed.R.Civ.P., is not “to impose settlement 

negotiations on unwilling litigants.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 Advisory Committee’s Notes; In re 

Novak, 932 F.2d 1397, 1405 n. 15 (11th Cir. 1991). It is unreasonable to force 

Defendants, or any party for that matter, to incur unnecessary attorneys’ fees and travel 

expenses to participate in a settlement conference knowing in advance that the adverse 

party would only settle the case on terms unacceptable to Defendants. Simply stated, and 

under the present circumstances, the parties herein should use their limited resources in 

preparing and proceeding to trial on September 9, 2014, not wasting more time and 

money on a settlement conference doomed to fail ab initio. 

 Good cause appearing, 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-00773-DJH Document 51 Filed 05/07/14 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Automation, Control and Information Systems 

Corporation’s Motion to Vacate the Settlement Conference, doc. 49, is GRANTED. The 

May 15, 2014 settlement conference is hereby VACATED. 

 Dated this 7th day of May, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00773-DJH Document 51 Filed 05/07/14 Page 4 of 4