United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Dominic W. Lanza, United Slates District Judge.
This
order is intended to address several recent developments in
this case.
BACKGROUND
In
August 2018, this case was removed to federal court. (Doc.
1.) In November 2018, the Court issued the scheduling order.
(Doc. 23.) This order included a paragraph entitled
“The Deadlines Are Real, ” which
emphasized that “[t]he Court intends to enforce the
deadlines set forth in this Order, and the parties should
plan their litigation activities accordingly.”
(Id. at 7.) The order also contained a different
paragraph explaining that “the Court will not extend
the case management deadlines if and when the parties elect
to pursue settlement efforts.” (Id.)
Notwithstanding
all of this, on April 26, 2019, the parties filed a joint
notice explaining they hadn't engaged in any discovery
since late January 2019 “in an effort to keep
litigation costs down” because they were hopeful the
case would settle. (Doc. 46 at 2.) This notice also reported
that the parties had scheduled a mediation for mid-June 2019
and thus asked the Court to extend certain deadlines in the
scheduling order. (Id.)
On
April 30, 2019, the Court issued an order in which it granted
the parties' extension request-even though it was
contrary to the instructions in the scheduling order-and
adopted the parties' proposed new deadlines. (Doc. 47.)
The Court also noted that it would not rule on
Defendants' pending motion to dismiss-which became fully
briefed in March 2019 (Docs. 39, 42, 43)-pending the outcome
of the mediation.
On June
25, 2019, the parties filed a status report explaining that
the mediation had been “unsuccessful” and that
they would therefore “be moving forward with litigation
in this matter.” (Doc. 49.)
However,
on July 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Enforce
Settlement and Stay Discovery Deadlines.” (Doc. 55.) In
a nutshell, this motion argues that the parties continued
engaging in settlement discussions after the failed
mediation, that the parties “reached an enforceable
settlement on July 9, 2019, ” and that Defendants have
nevertheless “refuse[d] to perform” under the
terms of that settlement agreement. (Id. at 1-2.)
Thus, Plaintiff asks the Court “for an Order enforcing
the parties' written settlement agreement and staying the
discovery deadlines pending resolution of this Motion.”
(Id. at 2.)
The
following day, on July 24, 2019, the parties filed a
“Stipulation” in which they requested “a
stay of all future deadlines in this case pending this
Court's consideration and decision of Plaintiff's
July 23, 2019 Motion to Enforce Settlement and Stay Discovery
Deadlines [Doc. 53] and, if necessary, the pending and fully
briefed Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 39] . . . .” (Doc. 57.)
DISCUSSION
A.
The Motion To Enforce
As
noted, Plaintiff filed a potentially case-dispositive motion
on July 23, 2019 that asks the Court to determine whether the
parties entered into a binding settlement agreement and, if
so, to enforce that agreement. (Doc. 55.) Under Local Rule
7.2(c), Defendants had 14 days to respond to that motion. The
14-day deadline expired yesterday (August 6, 2019), yet no
response has been filed.
Under
Local Rule 7.2(i), if a party fails to “serve and file
the required answering memoranda . . ., such non-compliance
may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion
and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” The
Court would prefer not to summarily grant such an important
motion, but Defendants' inexplicable failure to file a
response is making it difficult to avoid that outcome. Thus,
the Court will give Defendants one final opportunity to
respond. Any response to the Motion to Enforce must be filed
by this Friday, August 9, 2019. If it is not filed by then,
the Court intends to summarily grant the motion.
B.
The Stipulation To Postpone All ...