HARRIS v. ZAMUDIO, 2:09-cv-1523 TLN AC P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20141125910
Visitors: 19
Filed: Nov. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng to conduct a settlement conference at California State Prison, Corcoran (CSP-COR), 4001 King Avenue, Corcoran, California 93212 on February 6, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. In
Summary: ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng to conduct a settlement conference at California State Prison, Corcoran (CSP-COR), 4001 King Avenue, Corcoran, California 93212 on February 6, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. In ..
More
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng to conduct a settlement conference at California State Prison, Corcoran (CSP-COR), 4001 King Avenue, Corcoran, California 93212 on February 6, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on February 6, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. at CSP-COR.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement shall attend in person.1
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.
4. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement statement to Sujean Park, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814, or via e-mail at spark@caed.uscourts.gov, so they arrive no later than January 30, 2015 and file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement (See Local Rule 270(d)).
Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the court nor served on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked Aconfidential@ with the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.
The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed or neatly printed, and include the following:
a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.
b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties= likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in dispute.
c. A summary of the proceedings to date.
d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and trial.
e. The relief sought.
f. The party's position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
g. A brief statement of each party's expectations and goals for the settlement conference.
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office at CSP-COR via facsimile at (559) 992-7372.
FootNotes
1. While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of disc1 retion review, "the district court has the authority to order parties, including the federal government, to participate in mandatory settlement conferences. . . ." United States v.United States District Court for the Northern MarianaIslands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2012)("the district court has broad authority to compel participation in mandatory settlement conference[s]."). The term "full authority to settle" means that the individuals attending the mediation conference must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1396 (9th Cir. 1993). The individual with full authority to settle must also have "unfettered discretion and authority" to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. Pittman v. Brinker Int'l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003), amended on recon. in part, Pitman v. Brinker Int'l., Inc., 2003 WL 23353478 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose behind requiring the attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the parties' view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. Pitman, 216 F.R.D. at 486. An authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be foundnot to comply with therequirement of full authority to settle. Nick v. Morgan's Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 596-97 (8th Cir. 2001).
Source: Leagle
