Ilsung v. Mobert

Filing 76

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/8/15. ( Settlement Conference set for 6/5/2015 at 09:00 AM in Sacramento, CA, Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

VICTORY ILSUNG,

11
12
13
14

Case No. 1:10-cv-02070-AWI-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

ROBERT MOBERT,
Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to

17

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement

18

conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman

19

for the Court’s Settlement Week program to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S.

20

District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on June 5,

21

2015 at 9:00 a.m.

22
23

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

24

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall

26

J. Newman on June 5, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I

27

Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.

28

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a
1

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

2
3

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

4

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

5

order to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition,

6

the conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.

7

4. Parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven

8

days

prior

to

the

settlement

conference.

9

simultaneously be delivered to the court using the following email address:
Plaintiff

shall

These

mail

his

statements

shall

10

[e-mail].

non-confidential

11

settlement statement to arrive not less than seven days prior to the settlement

12

conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC

13

CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall

14

be marked “Settlement Statement.” If a party desires to share additional

15

confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the

16

provisions of Local rule 270(d) and (e).

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

April 8, 2015

/s/

20

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3