Jordan v. Chapnick et al

Filing 94

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/20/11. Settlement Conference set for 11/3/2011 at 01:00 PM at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #2, before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison.(Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JAMES JORDAN,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-0202-MJS (PC)
ORDER

vs.
R. CHAPNICK, et al.,
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff James Jordan (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding without
counsel and in forma pauperis with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

17

This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison to conduct a

18

settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California

19

95814 in Courtroom #2 on November 3, 2011 at 1:00 p.m.

20

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

21

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge

22

Craig M. Kellison on November 3, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I

23

Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #2.

24
25

2. Plaintiff, Defendants’ lead counsel, and a person with full and unlimited
authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on Defendants’ behalf shall

26
1

1

attend in person.1
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses

2
3

and damages.
The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to

4
5

appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. Moreover, the conference

6

will not proceed in the face of any such failure to appear, but instead will be reset to

7

another date at which all will be ordered to appear.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
ci4d6

October 20, 2011

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

The term “full authority to settle” m eans that the individuals attending the m ediation conference
m ust be authorized to fully explore settlem ent options and to agree at that tim e to any settlem ent term s
acceptable to the parties. G. Heilem an Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7 th Cir.
1989), cited with approval in Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6
F. 3d 1385, 1396 (9 th Cir. 1993).
The individual with full authority to settle m ust also have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the
settlem ent position of the party, if appropriate. Pittm an v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D.
Ariz. 2003), am ended on recon. in part, Pitm an v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 2003 W L 23353478 (D. Ariz. 2003).
The purpose behind requiring the attendance of a person with full settlem ent authority is that the parties’
view of the case m ay be altered during the face to face conference. Pitm an, 216 F.R.D. at 486. An
authorization to settle for a lim ited dollar am ount or sum certain can be found not to com ply with the
requirem ent of full authority to settle. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F. 3d 590, 596-97 (8 th Cir. 2001).

2