Payan v. Tate et al
Filing
44
ORDER SETTING Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/2/2014. Settlement Conference set for 1/23/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MICHAEL J. PAYAN,
11
1:13-cv-00807 LJO DLB (PC)
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
H. TATE, et al.,
14
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
Defendants.
15
16
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
17
1983. The parties have agreed to a settlement conference, and the Court has determined that this
18
case would benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to
19
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court,
20
2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721, in Courtroom 9, on January 23, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.
21
A separate writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with this order.
22
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
23
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone
24
on January 23, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street,
25
Fresno, California 93721, in Courtroom 9.
26
27
28
1
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
1
settlement shall attend in person.1
2
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages.
3
4
The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in
5
person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not
6
proceed and will be reset to another date.
7
4. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement statement to Sujean Park, ADR
8
Division, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814, or by email to
9
spark@caed.uscourts.gov so they arrive no later than January 9, 2015, and file a
Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement (See L.R. 270(d)).
10
Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served
11
12
on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential”
13
with the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.
The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length,
14
typed or neatly printed, and include the following:
15
16
a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.
17
b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds
18
upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’
19
likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the
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. Pittman 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
major issues in dispute.
1
2
c. A summary of the proceedings to date.
3
d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial,
and trial.
4
5
e. The relief sought.
6
f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a
history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
7
g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement
8
conference.
9
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
December 2, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
L. Beck
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?