Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05905/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05905-16/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

1

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MANNICK,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

KAISER FOUNDATION

HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al., 

 Defendants.

___________________________/

No. C 03-05905 PJH

ORDER FOLLOWING

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

On June 12, 2006, I hosted a settlement conference in this case.

The parties appeared in person and were represented by counsel. 

The first matter discussed, on my initiative, was whether it would be

appropriate for me 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. Under the terms of the consent

decree, disputes about compliance were to be submitted to me for decision. After

giving the parties an opportunity to address this matter, I decided that I was not

comfortable wearing both a settlement hat and a power hat with respect to compliance

matters, so I asked the parties to make an election. They elected to have me host

settlement negotiations and to have disputes about compliance that needed to be

litigated referred back to the District Judge. Thus, as a group, we decided that

Case 4:03-cv-05905-PJH Document 187 Filed 06/13/06 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

2

because I would host settlement negotiations in this subject area I would be deemed

“unavailable” (as that term is used in the consent decree) to rule on compliance

disputes. 

After agreeing about which role I should play, we proceeded for some three

hours to explore the possibility of resolving by negotiation the disputes that have

arisen about compliance with the consent decree and to see if the parties could agree

on a new set of deadlines for completing the work contemplated in that decree. At

the end of this period, I concluded that both parties were addressing these matters in

good faith, but that they could not reach agreement. In short, disposition of the

compliance issues could not be achieved by settlement. Through their efforts with

me, the parties have satisfied the meet and confer requirements that are imposed by

the consent decree – and are free to pursue motion activity in this arena. I will play

no role and be a source of no evidence in resolving any motions that are presented to

the District Judge about compliance. 

Counsel for either party may contact me by phone or letter if there is an interest

in further pursuing settlement negotiations about any aspect of this litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 13, 2006

/s/ Wayne D. Brazil

 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to:

All parties, PJH,

WDB, Stats

Case 4:03-cv-05905-PJH Document 187 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 2