Shin v. Nicholson et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GABRIEL SHIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEANINE NICHOLSON, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00456-VC (TSH)
ORDER SCHEDULING FURTHER
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE;
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The Court held a settlement conference in this case on January 14, 2026. All of the parties
were required to attend. The Court’s order stated: “Counsel and Parties must attend the
settlement conference. Any request to excuse the attendance of a party or party representative
must be filed no later than December 10, 2025, and any response to such a request must be filed
no later than December 16, 2025.” ECF No. 198. No one filed any request to be excused.
Nonetheless, five of the Defendants did not attend the settlement conference: Jeanine Nicholson,
Robert Postel, Tom O’Connor, David Brown and Patricia Lee (together, the “Individual
Defendants”).
The reader may recall that Judge Chhabria’s tentative ruling said: “For any individual
defendants who remain in the case after the summary judgment ruling, Shin can seek punitive
damages against them. The Court does not need argument on this issue.” ECF No. 229. That was
a tentative ruling, not a final ruling, and as of this writing we don’t know which individual
defendants will remain in the case after the summary judgment ruling. Still, the tentative ruling
suggests that punitive damages should at least be a concern for the Individual Defendants.
However, because they did not show up to the settlement conference, it was not possible to talk
with them about anything at all, including their potential exposure to punitive damages. One of
Case 3:23-cv-00456-VC Document 262 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
the basic purposes of a settlement conference is to have a conversation with a judge about what
may happen at trial, rather than just sleepwalking into a jury verdict. But that conversation can’t
happen if you violate a court order and don’t attend your own settlement conference.
So we’re going to do this again. The Court schedules a further settlement conference for
February 3, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in person in Courtroom E on the 15th floor at 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, San Francisco, CA.1 The Court orders all parties and their counsel to attend. The other
requirements set forth in ECF No. 198 apply as well, except that additional settlement conference
statements are not required.
It seems to the Court that the Individual Defendants should bear all the expenses associated
with the second settlement conference, since their violation of the Court’s order by failing to
attend the first one is why we’re doing this. Accordingly, the Court orders the Individual
Defendants to show cause why they should not be required pay all of the expenses incurred by all
of the other parties in connection with attending the second settlement conferenced. The
Individual Defendants’ response to this OSC shall be filed no later than January 23, 2026. Any
other party may file a response to that response no later than January 28, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 20, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
1 Plaintiff and his counsel should buzz chambers to be let in.
Case 3:23-cv-00456-VC Document 262 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 2