Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Griffin v. Johnson, 1:13-CV-01599-LJO-BAM (PC). (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160216819 Visitors: 18
Filed: Feb. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2016
Summary: ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Court has determined this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, Californi
More

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25, on May 4, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to secure Plaintiff's attendance at the settlement conference via video conference will issue concurrently with this order.

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

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on May 4, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814, in Courtroom #25.

2. Plaintiff will appear at the settlement conference by video conference, from his place of confinement, as directed by separate order.

3. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on the Defendants' behalf shall attend in person.1

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 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.

5. The parties are directed to exchange with each other non-confidential settlement statements on or before April 20, 2016. Defendants shall simultaneously send a copy of their statement(s) to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall also mail a copy of his non-confidential settlement statement addressed to "Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814." Plaintiff's envelope shall be marked "Settlement Statement." If a party desires to share additional confidential information only with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order by email to DPS_AC_Prisons_Attph@ncdps.gov.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion 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 Mariana Islands, 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. Pitman 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