Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Morelos v. County of Stanislaus, 1:18-cv-01034-NONE-SAB. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20200210977 Visitors: 3
Filed: Feb. 07, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 07, 2020
Summary: ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BEFORE JUDGE KENDALL J. NEWMAN (ECF No. 65) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, a settlement conference is hereby scheduled for February 18, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. before United States Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman in Courtroom 25 at the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. The parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present for the
More

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BEFORE JUDGE KENDALL J. NEWMAN

(ECF No. 65)

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, a settlement conference is hereby scheduled for February 18, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. before United States Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman in Courtroom 25 at the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

The parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present for the settlement conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The individual with full settlement authority to settle must also have unfettered discretion and authority to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose behind requiring 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. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement conference statements seven days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall be simultaneously delivered to the Court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. These statements should not be filed on the case docket. If a party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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