Eric Wheeler v. Aliceson et al

Filing 124

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/4/17. Settlement Conference set for 3/2/2017 at 09:00 AM in US Magistrate Judge 501 I Street before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

ERIC WHEELER,

13
14
15

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

K. ALICESON, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case would benefit from a settlement

20

conference.

21

Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street,

22

Sacramento, California 95814, in Courtroom #25 on March 2, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.

23
24

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

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue
approximately one month prior to the settlement conference.

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 2, 2017 at 9:00 a.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 defendant’s 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
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

January 4, 2017

/s/

15

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
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 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. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., Inc.,
216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003), amended on recon. in part, 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