Garcia v. Clark, et al.

Filing 99

ORDER of REFERRAL For Settlement Week and Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 4/3/2013. (Settlement Conference set for 6/10/2013 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814.) (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
.
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM P. GARCIA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00447-LJO-DLB PC

v.
KEN CLARK, et al.,

ORDER OF REFERRAL FOR
SETTLEMENT WEEK AND SETTING
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

15
Defendants.
16

June 10, 2013, 1:00 p.m.
/

17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
18
1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference;
19
therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire for the court’s Settlement
20
Week Program to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,
21
Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #26 on June 10, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. A separate writ
22
of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue forthwith.
23
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
24
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Allison
25
Claire on June 10, 2013, at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,
26
1

1

California 95814 in Courtroom #26.

2
3

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

4

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

5

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

6

person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not proceed

7

and will be reset to another date.

8

4. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement conference statement to

9

Sujean Park, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814, or via e-mail at

10

[e-mail], so they arrive no later than June 3, 2013 and file a Notice of

11

Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement (See Local Rule 270(d)).

12

Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the court nor served

13

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

14

and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.

15
16

The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in
length, 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, i.e., statutory or other

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

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 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.
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., 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

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

2

prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in dispute.

3

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

4

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

5

pretrial, and trial.

6

e. The relief sought.

7

f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and

8

offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

9
10

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

11

5.

12
13

The deadlines and provisions of the Amended Second Scheduling Order, issued
February 11, 2013, remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:
77e0d6

April 3, 2013

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3