Harrison v. Adams, et al
Filing
297
ORDER Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/7/16: Settlement Conference set for 7/6/2016 at 11:00 AM at Atascadero State Hospital, 10333 El Camino Real, Atascadero, California 93422, before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston.(Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
MICHAEL D. HARRISON,
13
14
15
Case No.: 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
D. ADAMS, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiff Michael Harrison is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
19
action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined that this case
20
will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to
21
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston to conduct a settlement conference at Atascadero
22
State Hospital, 10333 El Camino Real, Atascadero, California 93422 on July 6, 2016 at
23
11:00 a.m.
24
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
25
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Jennifer
26
L. Thurston on July 6, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. at Atascadero State Hospital, 10333
27
El Camino Real, Atascadero, California 93422.
28
1
1
2
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
3
4
5
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and
6
damages. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to
7
this order to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In
8
addition, the conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.
9
10
4. At least 21 days before the settlement conference, Plaintiff SHALL submit to
11
Defendant, by mail, a written itemization of damages and a meaningful
12
settlement demand, which includes a brief explanation of why such a
13
settlement is appropriate, not to exceed ten pages in length. Thereafter, no
14
later than 14 days before the settlement conference, Defendant SHALL
15
respond, by telephone or in person, with an acceptance of the offer or with a
16
meaningful counteroffer, which includes a brief explanation of why such a
17
settlement is appropriate. If settlement is achieved, defense counsel is to
18
immediately inform the Courtroom Deputy of Magistrate Judge Thurston.
19
20
5. If settlement is not achieved informally, each party is directed to submit
21
1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
1
2
confidential settlement statements no later than June 29, 2016 to
3
jltorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement
4
statement to U. S. District Court, ADR Director, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200,
5
Sacramento, California 95814 so it arrives no later than June 29, 2016. If a
6
party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they
7
may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). Parties are
8
also directed to file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement
9
Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)).
10
11
Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor
12
served on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked
13
“confidential” with the date and time of the settlement conference indicated
14
prominently thereon.
15
16
The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in
17
length, typed or neatly printed, and include the following:
18
19
a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.
20
b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other
21
grounds upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the
22
parties’ likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a
23
description of the major issues in dispute.
24
c. A summary of the proceedings to date.
25
d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery,
26
pretrial, and trial.
27
e. The relief sought.
28
f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers
3
1
2
and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement
3
4
conference.
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 7, 2016
/s/
8
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?