Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02139/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02139-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 06-02139 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF SEEKING STAY OF ACTION

AND IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 7/28/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JADELYNN PETTYPLACE, on behalf of herself

and all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MONTEREY COUNTY BANK, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-02139 JF (HRL)

ORDER1 DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE

RELIEF SEEKING STAY OF ACTION

AND IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE

[re: docket no. 7]

On March 22, 2006, Plaintiff Jadelynn Pettyplace filed a complaint, on behalf of herself

and all others similarly situated, against Defendants Monterey County Bank and Genesis

Financial Solutions, Inc. alleging violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil

Code § 1788 et seq. On July 13, 2006, Defendants moved for administrative relief seeking a stay

of the instant action and a settlement conference before the Court. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Defendants argue that they have attempted to settle this action, but that Plaintiff refuses to

Case 5:06-cv-02139-JF Document 12 Filed 07/28/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Case No. C 06-02139 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF SEEKING STAY OF ACTION

AND IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

(JFLC1)

engage in reasonable settlement negotiations. Defendants cite no legal authority, nor is the Court

aware of any legal authority, that would support their proposition that the Court may stay an

action where parties have not engaged in settlement negotiations. The Court notes, however, that

the Court’s local rules require the parties and their attorneys to take certain actions and make

certain certifications concerning alternative dispute resolution. See Alternative Dispute

Resolution Local Rules. The Court routinely considers the issue of compliance with these rules

as part of the case management conference. The parties and counsel are reminded that the last

day for them to meet and confer with respect to alternative dispute resolution process selection

and to file joint alternative dispute resolution certification is September 29, 2006. 

With the understanding and expectation that the parties and counsel will comply with this

Court’s local rules, Defendants’ motion will be denied. The Court will consider the need for any

remedial action at the case management conference on October 20, 2006 at 10:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 28, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02139-JF Document 12 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Case No. C 06-02139 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF SEEKING STAY OF ACTION

AND IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

William E. Kennedy wkennedy@pacbell.net, mpq@kennedyconsumerlaw.com

Tomio B. Narita tnarita@wsnlaw.com,

Jeffrey A. Topor jtopor@wsnlaw.com,

Case 5:06-cv-02139-JF Document 12 Filed 07/28/06 Page 3 of 3