Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04541/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04541-6/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNESTO ABORDO et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United

States Postal Service,

Defendant. /

No. C-04-04541 VRW (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION, AND DENYING

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to file a motion for reconsideration, and for the

reasons set forth below, DENIES the motion.

On February 3, 2006, Defendant moved to continue the second settlement conference

scheduled in this case until after his motion for partial summary judgment was heard. On February

6, 2006, the Court contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel to ascertain her position on a continuance. On

February 7, 2006, not having heard from Plaintiffs’ counsel, the Court granted Defendant’s motion

to continue the second settlement conference until no later than April 2006. On February 8, 2006,

Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and motion for reconsideration,

arguing that the continuance was inappropriate on a number of grounds, including that the settlement

conference was to be held after the motion for partial summary judgment was heard, not after it was

decided; that the conference already had been continued; and that the twenty-nine named Plaintiffs

and/or their estates already had made arrangements to attend the conference on February 10, 2006. 

On February 9, 2006, Defendant opposed the motion for reconsideration, reiterating that holding the

conference before the motion for partial summary judgment was heard was “not likely to yield 

Case 3:04-cv-04541-VRW Document 58 Filed 02/09/06 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

results any different from the first.”

While the Court regrets the inconvenience that may be caused to Plaintiffs who already have

made arrangements to attend the conference on Friday, the Court nonetheless denies the motion for

reconsideration. Plaintiffs, through their counsel, had notice that Defendant requested a continuance

one week before the scheduled date. However inconvenient rescheduling the conference might be, it

would be even more inconvenient to ask twenty-nine individuals to attend a settlement conference

which Defendant indicates will be unfruitful. The Court will reschedule a second settlement

conference sometime after the hearing on the motion for partial summary judgment, as set forth in

its February 7, 2006, Order.

The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04541-VRW Document 58 Filed 02/09/06 Page 2 of 2