Gallardo v. Rainwater, 2:14-cv-1339 CKD P. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160304883
Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2016
Summary: ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is 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 set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on April 15, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #24. Parties will be requ
Summary: ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is 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 set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on April 15, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #24. Parties will be requi..
More
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is 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 set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on April 15, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #24.
Parties will be required to file a signed Waiver of Disqualification (attached below), no later than March 18, 2016.1
A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with this order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on April 15, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #24.
2. Parties are required to file a signed Waiver of Disqualification, no later than March 18, 2016.
3. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The individual with full authority to settle must also have "unfettered discretion and authority" to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. 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. 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.2
4. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement statement to the following email address: ckdorders@caed.uscourts not later than April 8, 2016 and file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement (See L.R. 270(d)). Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement statement to Sujean Park, ADR & Pro Bono Program Director, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814 so it arrives no later than April 8, 2016. The envelope shall be marked "Confidential Settlement Statement".
Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked "confidential" 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.
WAIVER OF DISQUALIFICATION
Under Local Rule 270(b) of the Eastern District of California, the parties to the herein action affirmatively request that Magistrate Judge Delaney participate in the settlement conference scheduled for April 15, 2016. To the extent the parties consent to trial of the case before the assigned Magistrate Judge, they waive any claim of disqualification to the assigned Magistrate Judge trying the case thereafter.
Dated:_____________
By:
Plaintiff
Dated:_________________
By:
Attorney for defendants
FootNotes
1. If the parties do not waive disqualification the settlement conference will be reset before another magistrate judge, but will not necessarily occur on the date currently set.
2. 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
