Carlson v. Hansen, et al.

Filing 93

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference and Extending Pretrial Dispositive Motion Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 03/03/15. Dispositive Motions Due by 5/6/2015, Settlement Conference set for 4/2/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN), Sacramento, CA before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 THOMAS JOHN CARLSON, Case No. 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND EXTENDING PRETRIAL DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE R. HANSEN, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 This case has been selected for inclusion in the Prisoner Settlement Program. This case is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #25 on April 2, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. 20 21 A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with this order. 22 In accordance with the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follow: 23 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before United States Magistrate Judge 24 Kendall J. Newman on April 2, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I 25 26 27 Date: 04/02/2015 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 25 (KJN) Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #25. /// /// 28 1 1 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 2 settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1 3 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 4 The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in 5 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not 6 proceed and will be reset to another date. 7 4. Judge Newman or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties 8 either by telephone or in person, approximately one week prior to the settlement 9 conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference. 10 5. The pretrial dispositive motion deadline set for March 6, 2015, is extended to May 6, 11 2015. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: March 3, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 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 Afull 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 Aunfettered 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 WL 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). 28 2

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?