Garrison Johnson v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 85

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/26/2014.(Settlement Conference set for 10/16/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.) (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
CDCR, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18

) Case No.: 1:10-cv-00582-AWI-SAB (PC)
)
)
) ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
)
)
)
)
)
)

U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

19
20

U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case would benefit from a settlement conference.

21

Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement

22

conference, at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25

23

on October 16, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.

24

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with this order.

25

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

26

October 16, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,

27
28

///
1

1

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25. Plaintiff is to appear by video conference

2

from his present place of incarceration.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding

3

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

4

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

5
6

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

7

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

8

will be reset to another date.

9

4. Judge Newman or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties either

10

by telephone or in person, approximately one week prior to the settlement conference, to

11

ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

August 26, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
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. 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