Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:16-cv-07723_de62> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 3 of
3
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-07723_de62 RegisterActionDate "2018-08-30" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-07723_de62 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: In-person settlement conference held. Parties were unable to resolve the matter. Defendant is ordered to submit a response to this order by September 13, 2018, explaining why it should not be sanctioned for wasting Plaintiff's time and resources by having the settlement conference. The matter was referred to this court on July 2, 2018. This court held a preliminary settlement discussion with the parties a week later, on July 10, 2018. (R. 59.) The court holds these discussions to ensure that the parties are genuinely interested in discussing settlement. The court then scheduled today's in-person settlement conference. (Id.) In the meantime, the court ordered the parties to exchange settlement position statements by August 6, 2018. (Id.) Once the court received the position statements, it reached out to the parties to start the settlement discussions. Through this process Plaintiff reduced its initial demand. Despite being informed of Plaintiff's revised offer Defendant neither responded to the reduced demand nor sought to cancel today's settlement conference. Not knowing Defendant's settlement position, the court did not cancel today's conference. Today Plaintiff's attorney, Public Adjustor Mark Leathe, and Condo Board Member James McDermott all appeared on Plaintiff's behalf. After the preliminary remarks from the court and the attorneys, the court met with Defendant privately, at which time it became clear that Defendant did not intend to negotiate. Parties have the right to stand on their settlement offers and demands, but they may not cause others to waste their time and resources attending a conference that could have been avoided. Defendant could have easily communicated its lack of willingness to change its initial settlement offer before today's conference, but failed to do so. Defendant is ordered to explain why it chose to wait until the conference itself to communicate its settlement position. An explanation is not required if Defendant reaches an agreement to reimburse Plaintiff's out-of- pocket expenses and attorney fees associated with today's appearance. Mailed notice (ma,) (Entered: 08/30/2018)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-07723_de62 AdministrativeID "62" @default.