Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

LUCERO v. MAYBERG, 2: 10-cv-2132 LKK GGH P. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120625694 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 21, 2012
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff, committed to a state mental hospital pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code 1026, having been found not guilty by reason of insanity in a criminal matter, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. This case will be referred to an attorney who is very experienced in mediating civil disputes, Joe Ramsey, 1 to conduct a mediation on September 18, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. Parties shall submit confidential settlement conference statements setting forth
More

ORDER

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, committed to a state mental hospital pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code § 1026, having been found not guilty by reason of insanity in a criminal matter, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. This case will be referred to an attorney who is very experienced in mediating civil disputes, Joe Ramsey,1 to conduct a mediation on September 18, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. Parties shall submit confidential settlement conference statements setting forth a brief description of the case, their respective positions as to the active claims/defenses, and a settlement demand/response. The settlement conference statements are not to exceed five (5) pages in length, and are not to include exhibits or attachments.

Plaintiff will be required to appear by video conference from his current place of commitment. A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue with this order.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This case is set for mediation on September 18, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom #2, at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

2. Plaintiff shall personally attend via video conference.

3. Lead counsel for both the state and county defendants along with, as to each set of defendants, a person with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on behalf of defendants shall attend in person.2

4. 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 accordance with E.D. Cal. LR 270 may result in the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions will include, but will not be limited to, the attorney fees and travel costs of the other parties and/or the mediator. In addition, the conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.

5. The parties are directed to provide confidential settlement conference statements to Sujean Park, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814, or via email at spark@caed.uscourts.gov, so that they arrive no later than September 10, 2012.

FootNotes


1. Although all parties waived disqualification of the assigned magistrate judge as the settlement judge in this case, the demands of this court's calendar simply will not afford the undersigned the time and opportunity to conduct this settlement conference; therefore, this matter was referred to Sujean Park, the district court's ADR and Pro Bono Director, to set this matter for settlement/mediation.
2. 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 found not to comply with the requirement of full authority to settle. Nick v. Morgan's Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 596-97 (8th Cir. 2001).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer