Menefield v. Yates et al

Filing 65

ORDER RE Settlement Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 03/02/2012. Settlement Conference Statements due by 4/25/2012; Settlement Conference set for 5/9/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (MJS) before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

JAMES FREDRICK MENEFIELD,

9

Plaintiff,

10

vs.

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-2406-MJS (PC)

ORDER

11

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

12

Defendants.
/

13
14

Plaintiff James Fredrick Menefield (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner who is proceeding pro

15

se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This

16

case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas to conduct a settlement

17

conference at California State Prison-Solano (CSP-SOL), on May 9, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue
concurrently with this order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference on May 9, 2012, at 9:00
a.m. at CSP-SOL, 2100 Peabody Road, Vacaville, California 95696.
2. Defendants’ lead counsel and a person with full and unlimited authority
to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on defendants’ behalf shall attend in

25
26
-1-

1

person.1
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses

2
3

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

4

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

5

conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.
4. The parties are directed to provide confidential settlement conference

6
7

statements to the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas, U.S. District Court-Northern District of

8

California, 514 H Street, Eureka, CA 95502 or via email at [e-mail],

9

so that they arrive no later than April 25, 2012.
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the

10
11

Litigation Office at CSP-SOL at [phone].

12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15

Dated:
il0i0d

March 2, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

The term “full authority to settle” m eans that the individuals attending the m ediation conference
m ust be authorized to fully explore settlem ent options and to agree at that tim e to any settlem ent term s
acceptable to the parties. G. Heilem an Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7 th Cir.
1989), cited with approval in Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F. 3d 1385, 1396 (9 th Cir. 1993). The
individual with full authority to settle m ust also have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the
settlem ent position of the party, if appropriate. Pittm an v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D.
Ariz. 2003), am ended on recon. in part, Pitm an v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 2003 W L 23353478 (D. Ariz. 2003).
The purpose behind requiring the attendance of a person with full settlem ent authority is that the parties’
view of the case m ay be altered during the face to face conference. Pitm an, 216 F.R.D. at 486. An
authorization to settle for a lim ited dollar am ount or sum certain can be found not to com ply with the
requirem ent of full authority to settle. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F. 3d 590, 596-97 (8 th Cir. 2001).

-2-