Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01451/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01451-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

09cv1451-DMS (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN POLCZAK,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a

Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1

through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09cv1451-DMS (BLM)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC

APPEARANCE AT THE MANDATORY

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

[Doc. No. 19]

A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) in the above matter

is scheduled for May 26, 2010. See Doc. No. 15. On May 10, 2010,

Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion requesting that Plaintiff be

allowed to appear telephonically at the MSC, and the Court granted

the motion on May 11, 2010. Doc. Nos. 17 & 18. On May 12, 2010,

Defendant filed the instant motion to excuse Defendant from personal

appearance at the MSC. Doc. No. 19. Defendant represents that

“[e]xtraordinary circumstances exist” because “Defendant’s

principals are located in Atlanta, Georgia, and personal appearance

at the [MSC] would require two days of travel time and excessive

Case 3:09-cv-01451-DMS-BLM Document 21 Filed 05/14/10 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- 09cv1451-DMS (BLM)

monetary costs.” Id.

The Court believes personal appearances by all parties and

clients are critical to a successful settlement conference, and as

explained in the Case Management Conference Order, all counsel and

all parties are required to appear in person absent extraordinary

circumstances. Doc. No. 11 at 4-5. The Court granted Plaintiff’s

recent motion because he does not have the financial resources to

travel to San Diego and he established the requisite extraordinary

circumstances that justify a telephonic appearance at the MSC. See

Doc. No. 17. Defendant has the ability to pay for travel to San

Diego, but prefers not to do so. These facts do not establish the

requisite extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, Defendant’s

motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 14, 2010

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01451-DMS-BLM Document 21 Filed 05/14/10 Page 2 of 2