Gebhart v. Gibson

D. Utah

Gebhart v. Gibson

DecidedJuly 2, 2024

Docket4:24-cv-00050

StatusUnknown

This text of Gebhart v. Gibson (Gebhart v. Gibson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gebhart v. Gibson, (D. Utah 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

STACY GEBHART, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTFF’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT v. CONFERENCE

DARRYL GIBSON, JEFF SAFTLEY, JEFF SHOTTS, TY TAYLOR, and JENNIFER SCHULTZ, Case No. 4:24-cv-00050-PK

Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judicial Settlement Conference.1 Defendants have not responded and the time to do so has expired.2 Whether to compel settlement is within the district court’s discretion.3 The Court “has authorization by local rule and [its] inherent authority to order mediation as a way of managing the litigation before it.”4 “Of course, a district court’s inherent powers are not infinite.”5 “[I]nherent powers must be used in a way reasonably suited to the enhancement of the court’s processes;” exercised in a manner that comports with applicable statutes, rules, and procedural fairness; and used “with restraint and discretion.”6 When settlement is forced upon unwilling

1 Docket No. 12, filed June 6, 2024. 2 DUCivR 7-1(a)(4)(D)(ii). 3 See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 559 n.1 (1988). 4 United States v. Ridley’s Family Mkts., Inc., 525 F. Supp. 3d 1355, 1357 (D. Utah. 2021); see also In re Alt. Pipe Corp., 304 F.3d 135, 143 (1st Cir. 2002); DUCivR 16-3. 5 In re Alt. Pipe Corp., 304 F.3d at 143. 6 Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). litigants, it stands to reason that the likelihood of settlement is diminished.’ Requiring parties to invest substantial amounts of time and money in settlement under such circumstances may well be inefficient.® Given the procedural posture of this case, including that Defendants only recently appeared and have not yet responded to Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court finds that a settlement conference will not be beneficial at this time. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judicial Settlement Conference (Docket No. 18) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 2nd day of July, 2024. BY THHICOURT; ‘Pst. fAUL KOHLER United States Magistrate Judge

7 Ridley’s Family Mkts., 525 F. Supp. at 1357-58. 8 Td. at 1358.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

STACY GEBHART, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTFF’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT v. CONFERENCE

DARRYL GIBSON, JEFF SAFTLEY, JEFF SHOTTS, TY TAYLOR, and JENNIFER SCHULTZ, Case No. 4:24-cv-00050-PK

Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judicial Settlement Conference.1 Defendants have not responded and the time to do so has expired.2 Whether to compel settlement is within the district court’s discretion.3 The Court “has authorization by local rule and [its] inherent authority to order mediation as a way of managing the litigation before it.”4 “Of course, a district court’s inherent powers are not infinite.”5 “[I]nherent powers must be used in a way reasonably suited to the enhancement of the court’s processes;” exercised in a manner that comports with applicable statutes, rules, and procedural fairness; and used “with restraint and discretion.”6 When settlement is forced upon unwilling

1 Docket No. 12, filed June 6, 2024. 2 DUCivR 7-1(a)(4)(D)(ii). 3 See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 559 n.1 (1988). 4 United States v. Ridley’s Family Mkts., Inc., 525 F. Supp. 3d 1355, 1357 (D. Utah. 2021); see also In re Alt. Pipe Corp., 304 F.3d 135, 143 (1st Cir. 2002); DUCivR 16-3. 5 In re Alt. Pipe Corp., 304 F.3d at 143. 6 Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). litigants, it stands to reason that the likelihood of settlement is diminished.’ Requiring parties to invest substantial amounts of time and money in settlement under such circumstances may well be inefficient.® Given the procedural posture of this case, including that Defendants only recently appeared and have not yet responded to Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court finds that a settlement conference will not be beneficial at this time. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judicial Settlement Conference (Docket No. 18) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 2nd day of July, 2024. BY THHICOURT; ‘Pst. fAUL KOHLER United States Magistrate Judge

7 Ridley’s Family Mkts., 525 F. Supp. at 1357-58. 8 Td. at 1358.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gebhart v. Gibson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gebhart-v-gibson-utd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack