Thompson v. Adams et al

Filing 63

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 01/31/2017. Settlement Conference set for 3/30/2017 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DeWAYNE THOMPSON,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00655-AWI-SKO (PC)

11
Plaintiff,

12
13

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

v.

14
15

T. ADAMS, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19

Plaintiff, DeWayne Thompson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

20

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case

21

would benefit from a settlement conference. This case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Craig

22

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

23

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #4 on March 30, 2017 at 1:00 p.m.

24
25

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

26

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

27

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison

28

1

1

on March 30, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,

2

California 95814 in Courtroom #4.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding

3

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

4

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

5
6

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

7

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

8

proceed and will be reset to another date.
4. Judge Kellison or another representative from the court will contact the parties either

9
10

by telephone or in person, approximately two weeks prior to the settlement

11

conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 31, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
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 (9 th 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).

2