Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02473/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02473-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

KG FUNDING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIM PARTRIDGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02473-MEJ 

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT 

REFERRAL AND TERM SHEET

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ joint status report concerning whether to proceed 

with a judicially supervised settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. 

Dkt. No. 99. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant KG Funding, Inc. (“KGF”), Counter-Defendant Kerner 

3D Technologies, LLC (“Kerner 3D”), and Counter-Defendant Eric Edmeades (collectively, the 

“Kerner Parties”) generally are in favor of a settlement conference with Judge Laporte, whereas 

Defendant/Counter-Claimant Tim Partridge is against it. Id.

By way of background, back on July 24, 2015, the Court granted the parties’ request to 

refer this matter to another magistrate for a settlement conference, and the case was subsequently 

referred to Judge Laporte. Dkt. No. 81. As the parties were unable to attend a conference before 

the deadline for filing dispositive motions, on August 26, 2015, the Court granted the parties’ 

request to continue all pretrial and trial deadlines. Dkt. No. 83. The Court granted a second 

continuance on October 29, 2015. Dkt. No. 86. As part of its October 29 Order, the Court 

directed the parties to contact Judge Laporte’s chambers and thereafter file a status report 

regarding scheduling. As of December 7, 2015, the parties had still not filed a status report or 

scheduled a settlement conference. But in the meantime, Partridge filed an Application for Writ of 

Possession on November 19, 2015. See Dkt. Nos. 88. Given those circumstances, on December 

11, 2015, the Court vacated all pending non-discovery-related pretrial and trial deadlines and 

ordered the parties to contact Judge Laporte’s chambers immediately to schedule a settlement 

conference. Dkt. No. 95. The Court also denied Mr. Partridge’s Application without prejudice,

Case 3:13-cv-02473-MEJ Document 100 Filed 02/04/16 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

noting the apparent lack of urgency for the issuance of a writ and the fact that there was still some 

dispute about whether the parties’ 2014 settlement term sheet was enforceable. Id. The Kerner 

Parties have previously contended the term sheet requires the parties to mediate their disputes

related to this case rather than bring them before the Court. Dkt. No. 74 at 2 (Mar. 5, 2015 Joint 

Case Management Statement). Following the December 11 Order vacating the trial deadline, 

Partridge submitted a letter to the Court essentially contending that the enforceability of the term 

sheet is a threshold issue that should be resolved before a settlement conference. Dkt. No. 96. 

The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer on this issue and submit a status report, which 

they did as noted above. Dkt. Nos. 98, 99. Partridge suggests the Court could rule the term sheet 

is void based on the evidence already in the record or that Partridge could file a motion to declare 

the term sheet null, whereas the Kerner Parties suggest that a settlement conference should be 

scheduled, after which, if unsuccessful, they will file a motion to enforcement the term sheet. Dkt. 

No. 99 at 2-6.

The Court is sensitive to Partridge’s concern about not needlessly stalling this case when 

the enforceability of the term sheet may be dispositive. That said, Partridge has not explained why 

first attending a settlement conference with Judge Laporte is objectionable. While Partridge 

indicates the Kerner Parties seek to delay the proceedings, both parties have contributed to the 

delay up until this point, and now may be the best time to resolve this matter through a settlement 

conference. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) The parties shall contact Judge Laporte’s chambers immediately to schedule a 

settlement conference no later than March 11, 2016. The parties shall file a joint status 

report within seven days after the settlement conference.

(2) If any party claims the 2014 settlement term sheet precludes the Court’s resolution of 

this case, that party must file a motion to enforce the term sheet by March 18, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02473-MEJ Document 100 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 2