Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04694/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04694-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY PEEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04694-JST 

ORDER RE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE 

RESOLUTION

This civil rights case was filed on October 9, 2015. ECF No. 1. On the same date, the 

Court issued an Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines. ECF 

No. 3. That order provided, in pertinent part, that the parties were required to file either a 

Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference Order by December 

17, 2015. Id. On December 17, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order selecting 

private mediation. ECF No. 15. 

On March 9, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement in connection with 

the Case Management Conference scheduled for March 16, 2016. ECF No. 23. In the JCMS, 

Defendants state that they no longer wish to participate in private mediation, and “will be filing an 

amended stipulation seeking a settlement conference with a magistrate judge, or alternatively, 

obtain an order at the Case Management Conference making this change.” Id. at 4. 

The court rules do not permit the parties to schedule a settlement conference with a 

Magistrate Judge by stipulation. As set forth in A.D.R. Local Rule 3-5, “[i]f the parties are unable 

to agree on an ADR process, or if the parties believe that a settlement conference with a 

Magistrate Judge is appreciably more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR, they 

must file a "Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference." A.D.R. L.R. 3-5(c)(2). This 

Case 3:15-cv-04694-JST Document 24 Filed 03/14/16 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

requirement is also stated on the face of the Northern District of California’s form Stipulation and 

Proposed Order Selecting ADR Process, a copy of which the parties filed on December 17, 2015. 

If the parties believe that a settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge is “appreciably 

more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR,” or if other issues have arisen 

regarding their previous agreement (and the Court’s order) to mediate, they should schedule a 

phone conference with the ADR office. 

The Court will not address this subject further at the Case Management Conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04694-JST Document 24 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 2