Brown v. Harris et al
Filing
119
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/28/2017. Settlement Conference set for 7/7/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney AT 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
CORNELL BROWN,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 1:12-cv-01472-BAM (PC)
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
v.
R. HARRIS,
Defendant.
Date: July 7, 2017
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Location: Courtroom #24, U.S. District Court,
501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814
15
16
Plaintiff Cornell Brown is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights
17
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have agreed that this matter would benefit from
18
a settlement conference with the assistance of a magistrate judge, and the Court agrees.
19
Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney to conduct a
20
settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in
21
Courtroom #24 on July 7, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad
22
testificandum will issue in due course.
23
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
24
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K.
25
Delaney on July 7, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom #24 at the U. S. District Court, 501
26
I Street, Sacramento, California 95814.
27
28
2. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the
Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The
1
1
individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and
2
authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose
3
behind requiring the attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the
4
parties’ view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An
5
authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be found not to
6
comply with the requirement of full authority to settle.1
3. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than June 30,
7
8
2017 to ckdorders@caed.uscourts.gov. If a party desires to share additional
9
confidential information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of
10
Local Rule 270(d) and (e). Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of Submission of
11
Confidential Settlement Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)).
4. Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on
12
13
any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with
14
the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.
15
The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length,
16
typed or neatly printed, and include the following:
17
a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.
18
b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon
19
which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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, 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).
1
2
1
prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in
2
dispute.
3
c. A summary of the proceedings to date.
4
d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and
trial.
5
6
e. The relief sought.
7
f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a
history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
8
g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement
9
conference.
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
March 28, 2017
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?