Reamel v. Harrington et al
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/9/2018. Settlement Conference set for 4/5/2018 at 09:00 AM at the U.S. District Court in Sacramento, Courtroom 1, before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
KELLI HARRINGTON, et al.,
Reamel Curtis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will
benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Craig
M. Kellison to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,
California 95814 in Courtroom #1 on April 5, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.
A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with this
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on
April 5, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California
95814 in Courtroom #1.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
settlement shall attend in person.1
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. The
failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in person
may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not proceed and
will be reset to another date.
4. Judge Kellison or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties either
by telephone or in person, approximately two weeks prior to the settlement conference, to
ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 9, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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
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?