Marques Butler v. Brazelton et al

Filing 52

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference on June 9, 2017, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/4/17. Settlement Conference set for 6/9/2017 at 08:30 AM at Corcoran State Prison, before a Magistrate Judge. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARQUES BUTLER,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 1:14-cv-1220-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE ON JUNE 9, 2017

R. BOOZER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore,

18

this case will be referred to a Magistrate Judge to conduct a settlement conference at California State

19

Prison, Corcoran (“CSP-COR”), 4001 King Avenue, Corcoran, CA 93212 on June 9, 2017, at 8:30

20

a.m. The Court will issue the necessary transportation writ in due course.

21

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

22

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before a federal Magistrate Judge on June 9,

23
24
25

2017, at CSP-COR.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
settlement shall attend in person.1

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.

1

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

1
2

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

3

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

4

will be reset to another date.
4. Parties shall each provide a confidential settlement statement to the following email

5
6

address: [e-mail]. Settlement statements shall arrive no later than

7

June 2, 2017. Parties shall also file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement

8

Statement (See Local Rule 270(d)). Settlement statements should not be filed with the

9

Clerk of the Court nor served on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly

10

marked Aconfidential@ with the date and time of the settlement conference indicated

11

prominently thereon.
5. The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed

12

or neatly printed, and include the following:

13
14

a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.

15

b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon

16

which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties= likelihood of

17

prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in

18

dispute.
c. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and

19

trial.

20
21

///

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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, 48586 (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

d. The party=s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a

1

history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

2

e. A brief statement of each party=s expectations and goals for the settlement

3

conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
Dated:
8

May 4, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3