Well, today was another deadline day ... and yet again, no settlement. Indeed, it looks like a deal
may be getting a bit iffy at this point.
Two motions for more time were filed today in the
Bardfield case, one by Chisholm:
And a very interesting one by the plaintiffs:
So, to recap: Chisholm refuses to sign the settlement because he claims the papers currently in front of him are not what he agreed to in mediation.
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, say they are the same, and that Chisholm's last minute raising of "disingenuous issues" make it "unclear whether the Parties will be able to ultimately resolve Chisholm’s “about-face” regarding certain material terms of the already agreed-upon settlement".
It looks like the major sticking point is over whether Chisholm agreed to "admit liability" during their mediation session. Plaintiffs seem pretty confident that he did, as evidenced by the fact that they're giving the judge the option to simply enforce the terms of the already signed mediation agreement (which plaintiffs say
does have Chisholm admitting liability), in lieu of granting more time.
Assuming the judge does not seize this option, the additional time being asked for is two weeks (in Chisholm's motion) or until
March 29, 2011 (in the plaintiffs' motion).
And there was finally some activity in the
DeForest case - another joint request for more time, this one good until
March 31, 2011:
Addendum 3/23/11: If you've been following these cases, and been frustrated at all these delays and time extensions, well you're not alone. It looks like the magistrate judge is finally fed up with it too:
She's approved a time extension to file settlement papers until
April 1, 2011. However, she's made it absolutely clear "[a]bsent a showing of extraordinary cause, no requests for any further enlargements of time shall be entertained."
Additionally, she's appended an interesting footnote to her Order, musing on the fact that one reason for the delay was Chisholm's consultation with his attorney. She wonders if Chisholm indeed has an attorney at his disposal, why he has not made an official appearance in the case:
"1 The court notes Plaintiffs’ statement in their motion that Defendant reports having consulted an attorney to review the parties’ settlement agreement (see Doc. 113 at 2). If Defendant in fact has hired an attorney for that purpose, to date the court is unaware that such counsel has represented Defendant in any other capacity. As the court has previously observed in this case (see Doc. 86 at 6, n.4), if Defendant submits pleadings that are represented as being pro se in nature but in actuality have been drafted by an attorney, Defendant could receive an unfair advantage in that his pleadings would be construed liberally while those filed by Plaintiffs would be held to a higher level of scrutiny; this advantage could affect other aspects of the litigation as well. Moreover, the submission of “ghost-written” pleadings has been deemed a deliberate evasion of the responsibilities imposed on counsel by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and, as such, has been widely condemned as unethical. See, e.g., Duran v. Carris, 238 F.3d 1268, 1273 (10th Cir. 2001); Ellis v. Maine, 448 F.2d 1325, 1328 (1st Cir. 1971); Bush v. Adams, 2010 WL 1253990 (E.D. Va. 2010); Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 884, 886 (D. Kan 1997). Accordingly, should Defendant hire counsel to represent him by preparing pleadings or other papers for submission to the court in this case, counsel must conduct him or herself appropriately, i.e., enter an appearance. Additionally, if Defendant is indeed consulting with counsel in any capacity regarding this case (or any other case pending in this district), Defendant shall, upon receipt of this order, provide a copy this order to counsel."
