Cruz v. Ahlin, et al.

Filing 30

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 08/14/2017. Settlement Conference set for 2/8/2018 at 09:00 AM in Bakersfield, 510 19th Street before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PETER CASEY CRUZ, 11 12 13 Case No. 1:13-cv-00988-LJO-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE JONATHAN HAMRICK, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Peter Casey Cruz (“Plaintiff”) is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined that this case will benefit 18 from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Jennifer 19 L. Thurston to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 510 19 th Street, 20 Bakersfield, California 93301 on February 8, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. 21 22 A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with this order. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. 25 Thurston on February 8, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 510 19th Street, 26 Bakersfield, California 93301. 27 28 2. Plaintiff will appear at the settlement conference by video conference, from his present 1 place of detainment, as directed by separate order. 1 2 3. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement shall attend in person.1 3 4 4. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses, and damages. 5 The failure of any counsel, party, or authorized person subject to this order to appear 6 in person may result in the imposition of sanctions.2 In addition, the conference will 7 not proceed and will be reset to another date. 8 5. At least 14 days before the settlement conference, Plaintiff SHALL submit to 9 Defendant, by mail, a written itemization of damages and a meaningful settlement 10 demand, which includes a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate, 11 not to exceed ten pages in length. Thereafter, no later than 10 days before the 12 settlement conference, defendant SHALL respond, by telephone or in person, with an 13 acceptance of the offer or with a meaningful counteroffer, which includes a brief 14 explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate. If settlement is achieved, defense 15 counsel is to immediately inform the courtroom deputy of Magistrate Judge Thurston. 16 6. If settlement is not achieved informally, each party shall provide a confidential 17 settlement statement to Sujean Park, ADR Division, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, 18 Sacramento, California 95814, or by email to so they arrive 19 no later than February 1, 2018, and file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential 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). 2 Plaintiff is not required to appear in person. 1 2 Settlement Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)). 1 2 7. Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on 3 any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with 4 the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. The 5 confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed 6 or neatly printed, and include the following: 7 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 8 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon 9 which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of 10 prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in 11 dispute. 12 c. A summary of the proceedings to date. 13 d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and trial. 14 15 e. The relief sought. 16 f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 17 g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 18 conference. 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 14, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?