Lopez v. Cate et al
ORDER Setting Settlement Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 03/22/217. Settlement Conference set for 6/27/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANDREW R. LOPEZ,
Case No. 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO (PC)
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
Settlement Conference: June 27, 2017
CATE, et al.,
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff, Andrew R. Lopez, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined that this case will benefit
from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to 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 June 27, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with
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 June 27, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,
Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.
2. Plaintiff will appear at the settlement conference by video conference, from his present
place of confinement.
3. A representative with full settlement authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1
While the exercise of its authority is subject to the 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
4. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages.
The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in
person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not
proceed and will be reset to another date.
5. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven (7)
days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be
delivered to the court using the following email address:
email@example.com. If a party desires to share additional confidential
information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule
270(d) and (e).
6. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, attorney Robert Navarro
SHALL file an executed substitution of attorney in compliance with Local Rule 182
indicating Plaintiff’s agreement with the notice of special appearance filed by Mr.
Navarro on March 10, 2017 (Doc. 205).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 22, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
v. United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9 th 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. Pitman 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 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).
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?