McDonald v. Yates et al

Filing 120

ORDER Referring Case to Settlement Week Program and Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/22/13. Settlement Conference set for 6/12/2013 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JIMMY MCDONALD, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00730-LJO-SKO PC ORDER REFERRING CASE TO SETTLEMENT WEEK PROGRAM AND SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE v. J. A. YATES, et al., 12 Date: Time: Place: Defendants. June 12, 2013 11:00 a.m. Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Stanley A. Boone 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Jimmy McDonald, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 24, 2009. This action for damages is 17 proceeding against Defendants Cano, Clark, Rodriguez, and Roberts for acting with deliberate 18 indifference to a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff’s health and/or safety, in violation of the Eighth 19 Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the case is currently set for trial on June 25, 2013. 20 The Court has determined that it is appropriate to include this action in the Eastern District 21 of California’s Settlement Week Program. This case is therefore set for a settlement conference 22 before United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on June 12, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. at the 23 federal courthouse in Fresno, California. 24 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 25 1. This case is referred to the Prisoner Settlement Program and set for a settlement 26 conference on June 12, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare 27 Street, Fresno, California, 93721, in courtroom #9. 28 /// 1 1 2. and enter into a binding settlement on Defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1 2 3 Defendants’ lead counsel and a person with full and unlimited authority to negotiate 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and relief 4 sought. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order 5 to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the 6 conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date. 7 4. Each party shall (1) provide a confidential settlement conference statement, described 8 below, to Sujean Park, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California, 95814, or 9 via e-mail at spark@caed.uscourts.gov, to arrive no later than June 4, 2013, and 10 (2) file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement 11 (See Local Rule 270(d)). 12 Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court or served on 13 any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with 14 the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. 15 The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than three pages in length, 16 typed or neatly printed, and include the following: 17 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 18 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, e.g., statutory or other grounds 19 upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ 20 likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the 21 major issues in dispute. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 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 by 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. Pittman 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., No. CV02-1886PHX DGC, 2003 W L 23353478, at *3 (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 c. A summary of the proceedings to date. 2 d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, 3 pretrial, and trial. 4 e. The relief sought. 5 f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and 6 a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 7 g. 8 A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement conference. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: i0d3h8 April 22, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?