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)

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