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)

Download PDF
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 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 .

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?