Intellectual Property Law

Western District: Read the Local Rules, then Seek a Settlement Judge

By Michael Atkins

The parties in Carey Licensing, Inc. v. Sandler have had a little trouble trying to book a Western District magistrate judge for a settlement conference in their trademark infringement and cybersquatting case. But as the Western District reminded them this week, magistrate judges don’t participate in settlement conferences — only parties do. The court’s minute order serves as a good reminder as to the difference between settlement conferences, mediations, and judicial settlement conferences. And, of course, to follow the local rules:

“The court has been notified that counsel for both parties in this action have attempted to contact one or more magistrate judges to schedule a settlement conference. In doing so, the parties have ignored the court’s previously issued scheduling orders, and have ignored the court’s local rules.

“The court’s most recent scheduling order requires the parties to complete a ‘Settlement Conference per CR 39.1(c)(2)’ no later than April 4, 2008 and to conduct a ‘Mediation per 39.1(c)(3)’ no later than July 1, 2008. As the applicable sections of the court’s local rules state, a settlement conference is a conference solely between the parties, and is a prerequisite to engaging in the mediation that the court requires. Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 39.1(c)(2). A ‘judicial settlement conference,’ by contrast ordinarily takes place only after a Rule 39.1 mediation.

“In this case, so far as the record reveals, the parties have neither engaged in the settlement conference required under Rule 39.1(c)(2) nor the mediation required by Rule 39.1(c)(1). Until they have satisfied those requirements, the parties shall not seek a judicial settlement conference. Once they have completed these steps, the parties may contact this court’s Deputy Clerk … to discuss the possibility of appointing a settlement judge.”

The case cite is Carey Licensing, Inc. v. Sandler, No. 05-1337 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2008) (Jones, J.).

Full post as published by Seattle Trademark Lawyer on March 19, 2008 (boomark / email).