From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. El Dorado County

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 21, 2008
No. 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2008)

Opinion

No. 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-GGH.

November 21, 2008


ORDER


Counsel for Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff El Dorado County ("El Dorado"), through this Motion, asks the Court to schedule a Mandatory Settlement Conference between El Dorado County and Plaintiff, the United States of America.

Despite the fact that two Special Masters, Catherine Yanni and Michael Lewis, have been appointed to mediate this case and while several mediation sessions have already occurred, El Dorado County nonetheless believes that mediation efforts between it and the United States have stalled and that the Court should now exercise its discretion under Local Rule 16-270(a) in setting up a judicially-supervised settlement conference before the assigned Magistrate Judge, Gregory G. Hollows, upon a showing of good cause.

The United States, on the other hand, points out that since the last mediation session in this case, it sent a revised settlement proposal to El Dorado County based on the Government's updated cleanup costs. According to the Government, it has yet to receive a response to that new proposal. While the Government believes it would be appropriate to resume mediation efforts after it receives a response, it maintains that any effort to do so beforehand would be premature, and further alleges that there is no reason why the assigned mediators should not preside over any renewed settlement discussions.

El Dorado does not dispute the Government's contention that it has not responded to Plaintiff's most recent settlement proposal, but nonetheless expresses its belief that efforts to resolve the case have reached an impasse.

Under the circumstances and given the expertise the mediators have already gained concerning the myriad details of this unquestionably complicated case, the Court believes that settlement efforts are still best channeled through the appointed mediators. El Dorado's Motion is consequently DENIED, without prejudice to renewing its request should subsequent developments in the case so indicate.

Because oral argument was not of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. El Dorado County

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 21, 2008
No. 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2008)
Case details for

United States v. El Dorado County

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; and…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Nov 21, 2008

Citations

No. 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2008)