Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05905/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05905-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MANNICK,

Plaintiff, No. C 03-5905 PJH 

v. ORDER OF REFERENCE

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Pursuant to Local Rule 72-1, this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph C.

Spero for a report and recommendation on plaintiff’s application for an order to show cause

for contempt against defendants for failure to comply with the consent decree and order re

injunctive relief. 

The settlement discussions that resulted in the agreement that forms the basis of

the consent decree and order (docket No. 36) were conducted by Magistrate Judge Wayne

D. Brazil. In agreeing to the terms of the injunctive relief, the parties “agree[d] to submit

any motion for enforcement or relief of any terms of [the] [c]onsent [d]ecree” to Judge

Brazil, or to the court in the event that Judge Brazil “is not available.” Consent Decree and

Order, Attachment A, at 1. 

On June 12, 2006, Judge Brazil conducted a further settlement conference, in which

he discussed with the parties “whether it would be appropriate for [him] to act both as the

host of settlement negotiations related to compliance with the consent decree and as the

decision-maker in disputes about compliance that cannot be resolved by negotiation.” 

Order Following Settlement Conference, filed June 13, 2006, at 1. Judge Brazil determined

that it was not, and the parties elected to have him host settlement negotiations and refer

Case 4:03-cv-05905-PJH Document 255 Filed 07/14/06 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

disputes about compliance back to the undersigned judge.

Because Judge Spero was previously assigned the task of resolving discovery

disputes in this case, and therefore is familiar with many of the substantive issues, the

court finds that he is best positioned to hear the parties’ arguments with regard to the

compliance dispute. Because the parties specifically consented to have Judge Brazil

resolve these issues, but have not consented to any other magistrate judge, the court

refers this matter to Judge Spero for a report and recommendation only. 

The parties will be advised of the date, time, and place of any appearance by notice

from Judge Spero’s clerk.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2006

_________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-05905-PJH Document 255 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 2