Huskey v. Lopez, et al.

Filing 34

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/19/17. Settlement Conference set for 9/18/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KENNETH R. HUSKEY,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00138-JLT (PC)
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

v.
LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

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

17

Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney to conduct a

18

settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in

19

Courtroom #24 on September 18, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

20

In accordance with the above, the Court ORDERS:

21

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K.

22

Delaney on September 18, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom #24 at the U. S. District

23

Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

24

2. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the

25

settlement conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The

26

individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and

27

authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose

28

1

1

behind requiring the attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the

2

parties’ view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An

3

authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be found not to

4

comply with the requirement of full authority to settle.1
3. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than

5
6

September 11, 2017 to [e-mail]. If a party desires to share

7

additional confidential information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to the

8

provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of

9

Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)).
Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served

10
11

on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential”

12

with the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.
The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length,

13

typed or neatly printed, and include the following:

14
15

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

16

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

17

grounds upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the

18

parties’ likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a

19

description of the major issues in dispute.

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 to 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

2

1

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

2

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

3
4

e. The relief sought.

5

f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a
history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

6

g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement

7

conference.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 19, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

3