Federal National Mortgage Association v. Takas, No. 2:2017cv00204 - Document 31 (D. Utah 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Denying 15 Defendant's and Third Party Plaintiff's Request to Refer this Matter to Mediation with the Court's ADR Program. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 5/5/17. (dla)

Download PDF
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Takas Doc. 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S AND THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO REFER THIS MATTER TO MEDIATION WITH THE COURT’S ADR PROGRAM v. Case No. 2:17-cv-2 04 DAK KRIS TAKAS, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. District Judge Dale Kimball Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells Pending before the court is Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff Kris Takas’ Motion to Refer this Matter to Mediation with this Court's ADR Program. 1 The court finds oral argument would not be helpful on the motion and decides it on the basis of the briefing before it. 2 Having reviewed Ms. Takas’ motion the court finds it contains arguments that are more appropriate for a decision on the merits of this case and applicable to the unlawful detainer controversy. They do not support a referral to the court’s ADR program. For example, Ms. Takas’ argues that Plaintiff’s “complaint of unlawful detainer ... must be dismissed.” 3 And, asserts that Utah’s unlawful detainer statute is a “’severe remedy, and … it must be strictly complied with before the cause of action may be maintained.’” 4 There are no arguments that the parties are somehow close to an agreement or that a referral to the ADR program would be more efficient in resolving the parties’ claims. 1 Docket no. 15. 2 DUCivR 7-1. 3 Mtn. p. 5, docket no. 15 (emphasis omitted). 4 Id. p. 6 (quoting Parkside Salt Lake Corp v. Insure-Rite, Inc., 37 P.3d 1202, 1206 (2001) (emphasis omitted). Dockets.Justia.com In addition, Plaintiff’s opposition notes the long history of settlement negotiations in this matter and the positions of the parties that appear to be set in stone at this point. Plaintiff argues a referral to the ADR program would simply “waste further time and money ….” 5 The court agrees and finds there is no basis to refer this matter to the court’s ADR program. Ms. Takas’ motion therefore is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 5 May 2017. Brooke C. Wells United States Magistrate Judge 5 Op. p. 3. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.