Willard v. Moreno

Filing 43

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/27/2017. Settlement Conference set for 6/30/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA A. WILLARD, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:14-cv-00521-LJO-JLT (PC) ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE v. L. MORENO, Defendant. 16 17 On March 23, 2017, parties were ordered to file statements indicating whether a court 18 supervised settlement conference would be beneficial. (Doc. 40.) Both parties filed statements 19 indicating they believe a settlement conference would be beneficial. (Docs. 41 & 42.) The Court 20 has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will 21 be referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney to conduct a settlement conference at the U. 22 S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #24 on June 30, 2017 23 at 9:30 a.m. A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue. 24 In accordance with the above, the Court ORDERS: 25 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. 26 Delaney on June 30, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 27 Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #24. 28 1 2. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority1 present at the 1 2 Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on terms 3 acceptable. The individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered 4 discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if convinced 5 he/she should, or access to the person with this authority via telephone. 6 3. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than June 23, 7 2017 to ckdorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement 8 statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, 9 Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814 so it arrives no later than June 23, 2017. 10 The envelope shall be marked “CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 11 STATEMENT.” If a party desires to share additional confidential information with 12 the Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). 13 Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement 14 Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)) Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served 15 16 on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with 17 the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, 18 typed or neatly printed, and include the following: 19 20 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 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 2 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon 3 which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of 4 prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in 5 dispute. 6 c. A summary of the proceedings to date. 7 d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and trial. 8 e. The relief sought. 9 f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 10 history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 11 g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 12 conference. 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 27, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 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?