Chavez v. Kings County et al

Filing 73

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/15/2017. Settlement Conference set for 3/9/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (MJS) before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng.(Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JUAN CHAVEZ,

11

1:13-cv-00342-SKO (PC)
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

v.
(Doc. 71)

13

KINGS COUNTY, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff, Juan Chavez, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

17

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 18, 2016, the court ordered parties to

18

advise the court whether a settlement conference would be beneficial. (Doc. 44.) The parties

19

responded that they believed a settlement conference would be beneficial in this case. (Doc. 49 &

20

53.)
A settlement conference was held on December 9, 2016 before Magistrate Judge Michael

21
22

J. Seng. The case did not settle. On February 8, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for a court

23

settlement conference. (Doc. 71.) The court believes a further settlement conference would be

24

beneficial in this case; therefore, this case will be set for a further settlement conference before

25

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno,

26

California 93721 in Courtroom #6 on March 9, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.

27

//

28

1

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with

1
2

this order.

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. A further settlement conference is set for March 9, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom #6

5

before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare

6

Street, Fresno, California 93721.

7

2. Defendants’ lead counsel and a person with full and unlimited authority to negotiate

8

and enter into a binding settlement on defendants’ behalf shall attend in person1.

9

3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages.

10

The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in

11

person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not

12

proceed and will be reset to another date.
4. The parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than

13
14

March 2, 2017 to [e-mail]. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential

15

settlement statement to Sujean Park, ADR & Pro Bono Program Director, USDC

16

CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814 so it arrives no later

17

than March 2, 2017. The envelope shall be marked “Confidential Settlement

18

Statement.” If a party desires to share additional confidential information with the

19

Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). Parties

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

are also directed to file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement”

2

(See L.R. 270(d)).

3

Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on

4

any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date and

5

time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. The confidential settlement

6

statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed or neatly printed, and include the

7

following:

8

a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.

9

b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon

10

which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of

11

prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in

12

dispute.

13

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

14

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and
trial.

15
16

e. The relief sought.

17

f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a
history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

18

g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement

19

conference.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 15, 2017

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

Sheila K. Oberto

3

.