Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01583/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01583-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW LOCKHART, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JAY R DELANEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01583-MEJ 

ORDER VACATING CMC AND 

ORDERING SUPPLEMENT RESPONSE

This matter is currently scheduled for a Case Management Conference on June 30, 2016. 

However, in advance of a Case Management Conference, the Court requires the parties to address 

an issue raised by their Case Management Conference Statement, Dkt. No. 11, and Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, Dkt. No. 1. Accordingly, the Case Management Conference and all related deadlines 

are hereby VACATED. The conference will be rescheduled, if necessary, after the parties address 

the issue below. 

Specifically, it appears this case is based on a prior case before this Court, Lockhart, et al. 

v. Kathleen Delaney, et al., Case No. 14-2593-MEJ (N.D. Cal.) (removed to this Court on June 5, 

2014) (hereafter referred to as “Underlying Action”). That case was conditionally dismissed on 

October 26, 2015 after the parties notified the Court they had agreed to a settlement. See 

Underlying Action, Dkt. No. 22. In that Order, the Court advised the parties that the conditional 

dismissal would become a dismissal with prejudice within ninety (90) days if the parties did not 

direct the Court otherwise. Id. Receiving nothing further from the parties, the dismissal became 

final with prejudice on January 24, 2016. Id. Now, however, Plaintiffs Lesley and Andrew 

Lockhart have filed the present action based on the alleged breach of the settlement agreement in 

the Underlying Action, but seemingly assert claims seeking essentially the same form of relief as 

Case 3:16-cv-01583-MEJ Document 14 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in the Underlying Action. Defendants have filed an Answer to the Complaint in this action, and in 

their portion of the Case Management Conference Statement, Defendants indicate they intend to 

file a summary judgment motion, but do not indicate that they have any concern about the 

dismissal in the underlying case.

Before setting a schedule in this matter, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint 

statement indicating whether the dismissal of the Underlying Action with prejudice potentially 

affects the claims in this case, and if so, whether the Court should set a briefing schedule on that 

issue in advance of the parties’ summary judgment briefing. The parties’ statement should be no 

longer than 8 pages, double-spaced, and must be filed by July 8, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01583-MEJ Document 14 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 2