Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00169/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00169-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM A. SEYMOUR, et al.,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 09-0169 PJH

v. ORDER OF REFERENCE TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR

LARRY W. GODWIN, et al., FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

The settlement to which the parties reached and placed on the record on April 29,

2010, has apparently become unraveled. The court scheduled a case management

conference for August 12, 2010, to discuss why the agreement had not yet been finalized. 

Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel. No one appeared for defendants, though court

staff did receive a voice mail message after the calendar advising that defendants’ counsel

went to the San Francisco courthouse by mistake. The court is aware that defendants filed

earlier today, a motion to enforce the April 29, 2010 settlement, noticed for hearing on

September 22, 2010. Plaintiffs’ counsel advised that they planned to file their own motion

the next day, and suggested that the court refer both motions to Magistrate Judge Laporte

for resolution. 

Given that the parties reached an agreement to settle once, the court is confident

that they can do so again. Thus, rather than proceed with motion practice, this matter is rereferred to Magistrate Judge Laporte to facilitate, if she can, another and final settlement of

this case. Any opposition to defendants’ motion to enforce and any opposition to the

motion to enforce that plaintiffs expect to file tomorrow, is DEFERRED and the motions are

STAYED pending a further settlement conference. At that conference, should the parties

Case 4:09-cv-00169-PJH Document 57 Filed 08/12/10 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

reach agreement again, the agreement must be finalized in writing, in full, in the presence

of Judge Laporte. The September 22, 2010 hearing date is VACATED and the court will

await notice from the parties and Judge Laporte as to the outcome of the settlement

conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-00169-PJH Document 57 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 2