Singleton v. Hedgepath et al

Filing 267

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Before the Honorable Kendall J. Newman signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/2/2016. Settlement Conference set for 3/29/2016 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman at U.S.D.C., 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Confidential Settlement Conference Statements Due: March 22, 2016. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KELVIN X. SINGLETON,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

vs.

1:08-cv-00095-EPG-PC
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE BEFORE THE
HONORABLE KENDALL J.
NEWMAN

A. HEDGEPATH, et al.,

13

March 29, 2016
1:30 p.m.
U.S. District Court, 501 I Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814
Courtroom: #25

14

Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman

15

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENTS DUE:
March 22, 2016

11

Defendants.

12

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

Date:
Time:
Location:

Plaintiff, Kelvin X. Singleton (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel
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 referred to Magistrate
Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the United States District
Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on March 29, 2016 at 1:30
p.m.
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. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J.
Newman on March 29, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. at the United States District Court, 501 I
Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.
1

1

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a
binding settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

2
3

3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages.

4

The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear

5

in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will

6

not proceed and will be reset to another date.

7

4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven

8

days prior to the settlement conference, no later than March 22, 2016. These

9

statements shall simultaneously be delivered to the Court using the following email

10

address: [e-mail].

11

confidential information with the Court, he or she may do so pursuant to the

12

provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

If a party desires to share additional

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 2, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

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).
2