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)

Download PDF
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: 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

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?