(PC) Stewart v. De La Cruz

Opinion

1 Order 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERICK LATON STEWART SR., Case No. 1:20-cv-00978-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF 13 v. (Doc. No. 41) 14 A. DE LA CRUZ and J. MIRAMONTES, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO 15 Defendants. OPT OUT OF A SECOND SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 16 DECEMBER 13, 2024 DEADLINE 17

18 19 On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Pretrial Statement and Motion for 20 a Settlement Conference and Miscellaneous Request to Bring Case to a[n] Ending [by] Polygraph 21 Test.” (Doc. No. 41). Although labeled as a “Pretrial Statement,” the pleading does not contain 22 any information required by Local Rule 281.1 Instead, Plaintiff seeks a polygraph test and a 23 second settlement conference in his pleading. Thus, the Court does not consider the pleading to 24 be a Pretrial Statement because it wholly fails to comply with Local Rule 281. 25

26 1 A pleading’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 27 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)). Instead, we “construe [the pleading], however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested.” Id. 28 1 Regarding Plaintiffs request for a polygraph test, the Court twice previously denied 2 | Plaintiff's “Motion for Polygraph Examination” brought under Title 9 of the California Code of 3 | Regulations and under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3293(A)(1)-(3). (Doc. Nos. 33, 35). The Court 4 | has no authority to order a polygraph examination of Plaintiff. 5 Regarding Plaintiff's request for a settlement conference, the Court notes that the Parties’ 6 | first settlement conference held on August 28, 2023 resulted in an impasse. The Court, however, 7 | is willing to afford the parties a second opportunity to engage in alternative dispute resolution if 8 || all parties believe a second settlement conference would be fruitful. Attempting to resolve this 9 | matter through settlement now would save all parties the time and expense of preparing for trial. 10 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 11 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED to the extent 12 Plaintiff requests a polygraph examination. 13 2. No later than December 13, 2024, Defendants shall file a notice to opt out of a 14 second settlement conference. If Defendants do not opt out by close of business on 15 December 13, 2024, the Court will set this case for a second settlement conference 16 before a United States Magistrate Judge. 17 3. Absent further order by the Court, Plaintiff shall serve and file a pretrial statement as 18 described in the Court’s October 21, 2024 Order on or before January 13, 2025. 19 | Dated: _ December 2, 2024 Mile. Wh. foareh Zaskth 1 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28