Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04066/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04066-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 - 

Case No. 14-CV-04066 KAW 

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP

WALTER C. GREENOUGH (admitted pro hac vice) 

wgreenough@schiffhardin.com

MATTHEW W. CALLAHAN (Bar No. 307782) 

mcallahan@schiffhardin.com

One Market Plaza, Spear Street Tower

Thirty-Second Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 901-8700

Facsimile: (415) 901-8701 

Attorneys for Defendant 

AMERIWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

VICTOR PALACIOS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMERIWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 4:14-CV-04066 KAW

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

Trial Date: May 2, 2016 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Judge: Kandis A. Westmore 

Defendant Ameriwood Industries, Inc. objects to the setting of this case for a settlement 

conference. Defendant respectfully requests that the settlement conference be cancelled or, in the 

alternative, that it be held by conference call. 

On April 1, the Court sua sponte referred this case for a mandatory settlement conference. 

(Dkt. #85). Today, that conference was set for April 15. (Dkt. #86). 

The Court, however, previously ordered the parties to participate in mediation through the 

Northern District ADR program. (Dkt. # 28). They did so on January 27, 2016. On February 8, 

2016, the Mediator filed his Certification that the mediation had been conducted, that the case had 

not settled, and that the mediation was complete. 

Rule 3.2 of the Northern District’s ADR Local Rule provides that the parties “are 

presumptively required to participate in one non-binding ADR process.” (Emphasis added). The 

Case 4:14-cv-04066-KAW Document 89 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 2
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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. 14-CV-04066 KAW 

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

Rule goes on to provide that the Judge will select “one of the ADR processes offered by the 

Court, or may refer the case to a settlement conference.” (emphasis added). Because the parties 

already have completed Court-ordered mediation, they should not be required to participate in a 

settlement conference as well. 

This is particularly true here, where the mediation occurred just nine weeks ago. Rule 3.2 

concludes that no ADR process is required if the Court finds that the likely benefits do not justify 

its costs. Here, discovery had already closed by the time the mediation was held. Nothing has 

happened in the case since then to make settlement more likely. To the contrary, a lien has been 

filed in the amount of $105,000 (Dkt. #79). This lien makes settlement impossible, as it increases 

the amount Defendant would have to pay for Plaintiff to receive anything to an amount greatly in 

excess of Defendant’s valuation of the case. 

Defendant already has had to bear the substantial costs, fees and inconvenience of flying 

its lead counsel and client representative to California for the mediation. Defendant should not be 

required to bear those expenses a second time, especially when it is busy preparing for trial and 

its counsel already has to fly to California for hearings on both April 7 and 19. 

Finally, Defendant’s lead counsel already is scheduled to attend an expert witness 

deposition in Houston, Texas, on April 14. This would make it very difficult for him to attend a 

settlement conference in Oakland the next morning. It also would be difficult to find a client 

representative who could attend on such short notice. 

For these reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the settlement conference be 

canceled or, at the very least, that it be held by conference call. 

Dated: April 4, 2016 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 

By: /s/ Matthew Callahan 

Matthew W. Callahan 

Attorneys for Defendant 

AMERIWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. 

CH2\18145248.1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

Judge Kandis Westmore

Defendant's request to cancel the settlement conference is denied. Any request to attend by telephone should be directed to Magistrate Judge Ryu.

Case 4:14-cv-04066-KAW Document 89 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 2