Williams v. Wasco State Prison et al

Filing 72

ORDER Vacating Evidentiary Hearing; ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 50 Motion for Settlement Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 04/14/2017. Settlement Conference set for 8/9/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

LANCE WILLIAMS,

13
14
15

Plaintiff,

(ECF No. 70)
WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,
Defendants.

17

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
(ECF No. 50)

18

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

19
20

Date: August 9, 2017
Time: 9:30 a.m., Courtroom 25 (KJN)

21

23

ORDER VACATING EVIDENTIARY
HEARING

v.

16

22

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

24

On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a settlement

25

conference. (ECF No. 50.) The Court agrees that this case will benefit from a settlement

26

conference.

27

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

28

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on August 9, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. A

Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J.

1

1
2

separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue at a later date.

3

In light of the settlement conference and parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 71), the

4

evidentiary hearing scheduled for June 23, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. in the Fresno Courthouse

5

and the associated pre-hearing deadlines (ECF No. 70) will be vacated pending further

6

order of the Court.

7

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

8

1. The evidentiary hearing scheduled for June 23, 2017 (ECF No. 70) is

9

VACATED pending further order of the Court;

10

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED;

11

3. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall

12

J. Newman on August 9, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I

13

Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.

14

4. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a
binding settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

15
16

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

17

damages. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to

18

this order to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In

19

addition, the conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.

20

6. Parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven

21
1

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

1
2

days prior to the settlement conference.

These statements shall

3

simultaneously be delivered to the court using the following email address:

4

[e-mail].

5

confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the

6

provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

If a party desires to share additional

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 14, 2017

/s/

10

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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