Saahdi Coleman v. Figueroa et al

Filing 68

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/7/2018: Settlement Conference set for 10/18/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAAHDI ABDUL COLEMAN,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00109-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

P. FIGUEROA,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Saahdi Coleman (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

18

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined that this case will

19

benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge

20

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

21

Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #25, on October 18, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.1

22

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

23

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on

24

October 18, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,

25

California, 95814, in Courtroom #25. If District Judge Anthony W. Ishii declines to adopt

26

the Court’s findings and recommendations (ECF No. 67) and dismisses this case, the

27
28

1

The deadlines set out in the Court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 53) remain the same.
1

settlement conference will be vacated.

1
2

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
settlement shall attend in person.2

3
4

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

5

in this case. The failure of any counsel, party, or authorized person subject to this order to

6

appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will

7

not proceed and will be reset to another date.

8

4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days

9

prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered to

10

the court using the following email address: [e-mail]. Plaintiff shall

11
mail his non-confidential settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman,
12
USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814, so that it arrives at least

13
14

seven (7) days prior to the settlement conference. The envelope shall be marked

15

“SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” The date and time of the settlement conference shall be

16

prominently indicated on the settlement statement. If a party desires to share confidential

17

information with Judge Newman, that party may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local

18
Rule 270(d) and (e).

19
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

2

1

5. Judge Newman or another representative from the Court will be contacting the parties

2

either by telephone or in person, approximately two weeks prior to the settlement

3

conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
Dated:
7

August 7, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3