Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02908/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02908-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUEEN ESTHER JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

POSTMASTER GENERAL JOHN E.

POTTER,

Defendant

 /

No. C 03-2908 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR A HEARING

The Court is in receipt of a document, filed September 20, 2006 by plaintiff Queen

Esther Jackson and titled “Plaintiff’s Plead to the Court for a Hearing Toward Defendant’s

Contempt of Court Order Filed September 20th 2005.” By said document, plaintiff asserts

defendant is in breach of his obligations under the Order of Settlement Compromise, filed

August 2, 2005, and clarified in the Court’s order of September 20, 2005.

The precise nature of the asserted breach to which plaintiff is referring is unclear. In

any event, the Order of Compromise Settlement provides that “[i]n the event of an alleged

breach of [the parties’] agreement, the parties agree to meet and confer in good faith efforts

to reach resolution prior to initiating any legal action.” (See id.) In other words, if plaintiff is

of the view that defendant is in breach of his obligations under the parties’ settlement

agreement, plaintiff must first meet with defendant’s counsel for the purpose of resolving

Case 3:03-cv-02908-MMC Document 62 Filed 11/06/06 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

1

According to plaintiff’s motion, plaintiff has had unsatisfactory dealings with certain

of defendant’s employees. Although plaintiff indicates she served the instant motion on

defendant’s counsel, plaintiff does not indicate that, prior to seeking relief from the Court,

she met and conferred with defendant’s counsel in an attempt to resolve any issues that

have arisen concerning implementation of the parties’ agreement. If, after meeting with

defendant’s counsel, plaintiff is still of the view that Court intervention is required, plaintiff

must, in addition to clearly identifying the nature of any asserted breach, set forth the steps

she has taken to meet and confer with defendant’s counsel, and indicate why the result of

such meeting was unsatisfactory.

2

the matter. Only if those efforts are unsuccessful in resolving the dispute may plaintiff seek

relief from the Court.1

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for a hearing in the above-titled matter is hereby

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02908-MMC Document 62 Filed 11/06/06 Page 2 of 2