Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04155/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04155-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corticas Lamosel, Lda
Plaintiff
Diageo Chateau & Estate Wines
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORTICAS LAMOSEL, LDA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 DIAGEO CHATEAU & ESTATE WINES,

Defendant. /

No. C-05-04155 SI (EDL)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

CONTINUE SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE AND DENYING

REQUEST TO APPEAR BY

TELEPHONE

On September 20, 2006, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration seeking a continuance of the

September 27, 2006 settlement conference, or in the alternative, to have Plaintiff’s representative,

Mr. Olivera, appear by telephone. Counsel states that she was just informed that Plaintiff’s factory

in Portugal had burned down and that Mr. Olivera “could not leave his business at the moment since

it is critical to Lamosel that he remain at the site,” and that therefore, Mr. Olivera would be unable to

travel to San Francisco for the settlement conference. See Basaloco-Lapo Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5. Defense

counsel stated in a response letter dated September 20, 2006 that the factory fire took place in June

2006. Notably, Plaintiff’s counsel does not indicate the date of the fire in her declaration. 

This is the second time that Mr. Olivera has indicated his intent not to appear at a settlement

conference only days before the conference date. The Court previously issued an Order to Show

Cause, requiring Plaintiff to show why it should not be sanctioned for violating the Court’s Order

requiring attendance at the August 16, 2006 settlement conference. Mr. Olivera filed a declaration

in response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, which the Court determined was inadequate to

excuse his failure to attend. Nevertheless, the Court declined to issue sanctions at that time. The

Case 3:05-cv-04155-SI Document 36 Filed 09/25/06 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

Court continued the settlement conference to September 27, 2006 and ordered Mr. Olivera to be

present.

It is once again clear that Mr. Olivera, while expressing “deep regret at the inconvenience”

his inability to travel to San Francisco may cause, has indicated his intent to violate another court

order requiring his attendance at the settlement conference. The Court is not persuaded that there

has been a sufficient showing to excuse Mr. Olivera’s absence from the settlement conference. The

request to continue the September 27, 2006 settlement conference or to permit Mr. Olivera to appear

by telephone is denied. Plaintiff is warned that violation of a court order may be punishable by

monetary sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04155-SI Document 36 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 2