Cardoza v. Tann et al

Filing 81

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 3/30/15. Settlement Conference set for 6/4/2015 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Verduzco, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAWRENCE PEPE CARDOZA,
Case No. 1:11-cv-01386-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER SETTING
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

vs.
M. TANN, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Lawrence Pepe Cardoza is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in an
action brought under 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 for the Court’s Settlement Week program to conduct a settlement
conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in
Courtroom #25 on June 4, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.
A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently
with this order. Accordingly,
1.

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

J. Newman on June 4, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,
California 95814 in Courtroom #25.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Cardoza v. Tann, 1:11-cv-01386-RRB – 1

2.

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

binding settlement shall attend in person.1
3.

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.
4.

Parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven

days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered
to the court using the following email address: [e-mail]. 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 “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).
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Cardoza v. Tann, 1:11-cv-01386-RRB – 2