Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Calloway v. Hayward, 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA-PC. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20161202775 Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (ECF No. 176.) ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE December 21, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Courtroom #1 (GSA) GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On September 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion requesting a settlement conference. (ECF No. 176.) On September 23, 2016, the court ordered defendants to indicate whether they believe a settlement co
More

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (ECF No. 176.) ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE December 21, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Courtroom #1 (GSA)

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion requesting a settlement conference. (ECF No. 176.) On September 23, 2016, the court ordered defendants to indicate whether they believe a settlement conference would be beneficial. (ECF No. 181.) On November 16, 2016, defendants responded that they believe a settlement conference in this matter would be beneficial. (ECF No. 185.) Therefore, the court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Plaintiff's motion for a settlement conference is granted, and this case will be set for a settlement conference before the undersigned to occur at the U.S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721 in Courtroom #1 on December 21, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

Parties will be required to file a signed "Waiver of Disqualification" (attached below), no later than December 14, 2016.

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with this order.

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

1. Plaintiff's motion for a settlement conference, filed on September 8, 2016, is GRANTED. 2. This case is set for a settlement conference before the undersigned to occur on December 21, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721 in Courtroom #1. 3. Parties are required to file a signed "Waiver of Disqualification" no later than December 14, 2016. 4. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement shall attend in person1. 5. 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. 6. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than December 14, 2016 to the following email address: gsaorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 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 December 14, 2016. The envelope shall be marked "Confidential Settlement Statement." Parties are also directed to file a "Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement" (See L.R. 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 "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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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 Gary S. Austin participate in the settlement conference scheduled for December 21, 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.

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