Mohamed v. Full Life Care

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 1, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01010
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 BASRA D. MOHAMED, CASE NO. C22-1010-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION TO COMPEL MEDIATION

10 FULL LIFE CARE, et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to compel mediation. Dkt. No. 13 90. After considering the parties’ briefing and the balance of the record, the Court grants the 14 motion. 15 I. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS 16 Plaintiff Basra Mohamed filed this lawsuit in July 2022, proceeding pro se, and since then 17 has amended and attempted to amend her complaint several times and has served extensive 18 discovery requests on Defendants Full Life Care and Transforming Age. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 11, 19 12, 16, 36, 46, 56. The Court has resolved many of the parties’ discovery-related disputes (Dkt. 20 No. 81, 83, 89) and Defendants are still waiting for overdue supplementary discovery responses 21 from Mohamed. See Dkt. No. 90 at 2–3. Several of the Court’s prior orders have referenced 22 communication problems between Mohamed and defense counsel. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 44, 58, 81, 23 83, 89. 24 1 In September 2023, defense counsel contacted Mohamed to discuss the possibility of 2 mediating this dispute. Dkt. No. 91 ¶ 4. Defendants offered to pay for Mohamed’s mediation fees 3 and proposed a list of 11 potential mediators. Id. Mohamed responded that she believed more

4 discovery was necessary before she would consider mediation. Id. Although the conversation 5 continued over the next few weeks, the parties could not reach an agreement as to mediation. Id. 6 On January 4, 2024, Defendants emailed a settlement offer to Mohamed, explaining that if 7 the parties could not reach a settlement by January 15, Defendants would move to compel 8 mediation. Dkt. No. 90 ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 91-1. Mohamed did not respond by January 15. Id. 9 On January 19, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to compel mediation, requesting that 10 the Court compel mediation “to assist the parties in resolving their disputes in a just, timely and 11 cost-effective manner.” Dkt. No. 90 at 5 (citing Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 39.1). Mohamed 12 opposes the motion on the grounds that Defendants have failed to respond to her requests for

13 discovery, suggesting that because the motion to compel mediation was “filed on the heels of a 14 granted motion to compel discovery,” the motion to compel mediation “seems less like a genuine 15 attempt at resolution and more like a strategic ploy.” Dkt. No. 92 at 4. 16 The Court indeed granted Defendants’ motion to compel discovery and ordered Mohamed 17 to provide supplemental responses no later than January 31, 2024, and she has apparently not 18 complied with this deadline. See Dkt. No. 83, Dkt. No. 90 at 3. This timeline does not suggest 19 that Defendants are failing to negotiate in good faith, as suggested by Mohamed (Dkt. No. 92 at 20 4), but instead corroborates Defendants’ argument that mediation would be more beneficial than 21 continuing with “protracted litigation.” See Dkt. No. 90 at 4. The Local Rules contemplate that 22 mediation can be appropriate even at “early stages of the litigation[,]” and this case has been

23 pending since July 2022. See LCR 39.1(a)(5). 24 1 Mohamed also questions whether mediation is appropriate in light of the case schedule, 2 given that the trial date was continued to November 2024. Dkt. No. 92 at 5 (referencing Dkt. No. 3 72). The Court agrees with Defendants (Dkt. No. 93 at 3) that the generous case schedule in fact

4 supports the result requested by Defendants because the parties can engage in mediation and fully 5 explore settlement discussions without the pressure of impending urgent deadlines. Indeed, 6 Defendants sought and were granted an extension of the case schedule on this basis. See Dkt. No. 7 66 at 6, Dkt. No. 72. 8 For all of these reasons, the Court finds it appropriate to compel mediation under Local 9 Civil Rule 39.1 over Mohamed’s objection, because requiring the parties to participate in a 10 mediation would “yield significant benefits” toward resolving this matter. See, e.g., Jones v. Bank 11 of Am., 2015 WL 11661769, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 2, 2015). 12 II. CONCLUSION

13 The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel mediation (Dkt. No. 90) and ORDERS 14 the parties to: 15 1. Select a mediator from the register of attorney neutrals no later than March 12, 2024. 16 If the parties cannot agree upon the selection of a mediator by that deadline, either party 17 may file a motion requesting that the Court designate a mediator from the register of 18 attorney neutrals. Either party may also request pro bono mediation. See LCR 19 39.1(c)(4). 20 2. Schedule a mediation within 60 days of the date the mediator is confirmed, subject to 21 the mediator’s availability. 22 3. Meet at least once, either in person or on the phone, to engage in a good faith attempt

23 to negotiate a settlement of the action no later than 30 days before the scheduled 24 mediation date. 1 4. Follow the mediation procedures described in Local Civil Rule 39.1(c)(5). 2 If the parties cannot resolve this case via mediation, either party may file a motion 3 requesting the Court appoint a settlement judge to conduct a settlement conference under Local

4 Civil Rule 39.1(e). 5 Dated this 1st day of March, 2024. 6 A 7 Kymberly K. Evanson 8 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24