Manago v. Davey, 1:16-cv-00399-LJO-GSA-PC. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180917841
Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (ECF No. 119.) ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . Stewart Manago ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On June 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for a settlement conference. (ECF No. 119.) Defendants filed a response on July 16, 2018. (ECF No. 120.) The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (ECF No. 119.) ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . Stewart Manago ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On June 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for a settlement conference. (ECF No. 119.) Defendants filed a response on July 16, 2018. (ECF No. 120.) The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a ..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (ECF No. 119.) ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
Stewart Manago ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for a settlement conference. (ECF No. 119.) Defendants filed a response on July 16, 2018. (ECF No. 120.) The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference and will grant Plaintiff's motion for a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721 in Courtroom #9 on November 6, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff is to appear by video conference from his place of detention.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for a settlement conference is granted and this case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on November 6, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721 in Courtroom #9. Plaintiff is to appear by video conference from his place of detention.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on defendants' behalf 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. The parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements to the court using the following email address: saborders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone, U.S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721. The envelope shall be marked "Confidential Settlement Statement." Settlement statements shall arrive no later than October 30, 2018. Upon submission of confidential settlement statements, each party shall file on the docket 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. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and trial.
d. The party's position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
e. A brief statement of each party's expectations and goals for the settlement conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay.
f. If the parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims not in this suit, give a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, including case number(s) if applicable.
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
