Brown v. Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford

Aug 13, 2021
1:20-cv-00186
Reporters:
Before:
Stanley A. Boone

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT HEARING

On September 30, 2020, a settlement conference was held, however, no settlement was reached between the parties. (ECF No. 31.) On June 2, 2021, an order issued denying Plaintiff Carolyn Brown (“Brown“) and Third Party Defendant Mecca Morgan’s (“Morgan“) motion for a second settlement conference and requiring them to provide Defendant and Counterclaimant Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford (“Hartford“) with a confidential settlement offer prior to the court further considering any request to hold a second settlement conference. (ECF No. 62.) The order also advised the parties that it would be disinclined to hold a settlement conference without the personal appearance of Brown and Morgan. The Court subsequently rejected Brown and Morgan’s other filed requests for a settlement conference that did not comply with the stated requirement to exchange settlement offers, or for other reasons, such as the requests being unsigned. (ECF Nos. 64, 67, 71.)

On July 26, 2021, the Court filed a request from Brown and Morgan again requesting a second settlement conference. (ECF No. 73.) The filing indicates that on July 12, 2021, Brown and Morgan sent Hartford a confidential settlement offer. The filing also indicates that Morgan has changed her mailing address to 472 South Salina Street, Syracuse, New York 13202, though did not specifically state whether this meant an inability of Morgan to appear in person at a settlement conference.1 In fact, the filing did not provide the Court any information regarding whether Brown and Morgan would be willing to appear in person for the requested settlement conference. Given the Court had previously informed the parties that if they were agreeable to a settlement conference, they would be required to file a joint request, the Court ordered Defendant to file a response to the request for a settlement conference. (ECF No. 74.) On August 5, 2021, Defendant filed a response indicating that the previous settlement conference was not productive in large part due to the inability of Brown and Morgan to meaningfully participate through videoconference. The Defendant requests that if the Court is inclined to a set a settlement conference, it require the personal appearance of Brown, Morgan, and counsel for Defendant.

The Court agrees that a settlement conference would not be productive without the personal appearance of both Brown and Morgan, based on the tenor of Brown and Morgan at the first settlement conference. Additionally, subsequent to the first settlement conference, Brown and Morgan have further demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to comply with directions of the Court regarding communications to the Court, and in appearing via video for hearings or for depositions. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 32, 40, 42 at 8, 44, 45 at 1-2, 50 at 6-7.) To preserve judicial resources and to promote meaningful settlement negotiations if a second settlement conference is held, the Court shall deny the request for a settlement conference, without prejudice.

If Brown and Morgan make another request for a settlement conference, they shall be required to confirm their willingness to both appear in person for such conference, otherwise the request will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request for a settlement hearing filed on July 26, 2021 (ECF No. 73) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2021

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Notes

1
In response to the statement indicating a change of address, on July 29, 2021, the Court directed Morgan’s address to be updated to the New York address. (ECF No. 74.) However, a subsequent mailing to this address on July 29, 2021, was returned as undeliverable, marked return to sender, refused, and unable to forward.