Washington v. Adams et al

Filing 98

ORDER Referring Case To Prisoner Settlement Program And Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/9/2012. (Settlement Conference set for 7/30/2012 at 10:00 AM at CSP-COR before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng)(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
CHRISTOPHER N. WASHINGTON,

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01666-AWI-SKO PC

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO PRISONER
SETTLEMENT PROGRAM AND SETTING
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

10
v.
11
DERRAL G. ADAMS,

Date:
Time:
Place:

12
Defendant.
13

July 30, 2012
10:00 a.m.
CSP-COR before the
Honorable Michael J. Seng

/
14
15

Plaintiff Christopher N. Washington, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 21, 2009. Upon

17

review, the Court finds it appropriate to refer this action to the Prisoner Settlement Program and set

18

it for a settlement conference before United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng at California

19

State Prison-Corcoran (CSP-COR) on July 30, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.

20

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

21

1.

This case is referred to the Prisoner Settlement Program and set for a settlement

22

conference on July 30, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. at CSP-COR, 4001 King Avenue,

23

Corcoran, California 93212 .

24
25

2.

Defendant’s lead counsel and a person with full and unlimited authority to negotiate
and enter into a binding settlement on Defendant’s behalf shall attend in person.1

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

1

1

3.

Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and relief

2

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

3

to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the

4

conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.

5

4.

Each party shall (1) provide a confidential settlement conference statement, described

6

below, to Sujean Park, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814, or

7

via e-mail at [e-mail], to arrive no later than July 23, 2012, and

8

(2) file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement

9

(See Local Rule 270(d)).

10

Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court or served on

11

any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with

12

the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.

13

The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than three pages in length,

14

typed or neatly printed, and include the following:

15

a.

A brief statement of the facts of the case.

16

b.

A brief statement of the claims and defenses, e.g., statutory or other grounds

17

upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’

18

likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the

19

major issues in dispute.

20

c.

A summary of the proceedings to date.

21

d.

An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery,

22
23

pretrial, and trial.
e.

The relief sought.

24
25
26
27
28

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

f.

2

The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and
a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

3

g.

4

A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement
conference.

5

5.

6

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation
Office at CSP-COR via facsimile at [phone].

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:
i0d3h8

July 9, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3