Sousa v. Wegman et al
Filing
43
ORDER SETTING Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/31/14. Settlement Conference set for 3/12/2015 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
JUAN SOUSA,
13
14
15
16
Case No. 1:11-cv-01754-LJO-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
C. WEGMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
17
Plaintiff Juan Sousa is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
18
this civil rights action filed October 21, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court
19
has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this
20
case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement
21
conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in
22
Courtroom #25 on March 12, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.
23
A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue
24
concurrently with this order.
25
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
26
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall
27
J. Newman on March 12, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I
28
Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.
1
1
2
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a
binding settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1
3
4
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and
5
damages. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to
6
this order to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In
7
addition, the conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.
8
4. Judge Newman or another representative from the court will be contacting the
9
parties either by telephone or in person, approximately one week prior to the
10
settlement conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement
11
conference.
12
5. In light of the settlement conference now scheduled for March 12, 2015, the
13
dispositive motion deadline, set in the Discovery & Scheduling Order (ECF No.
14
36), is extended to May 11, 2015.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated:
December 31, 2014
/s/
18
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
th
States v. United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9 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.
th
Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7 Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official
th
Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1396 (9 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
th
requirement of full authority to settle. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 596-97 (8 Cir. 2001).
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?