McCoy v. Holguin et al

Filing 165

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/11/2021. Settlement Conference set for 12/15/2021 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAKEITH L. MCCOY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:15-cv-00768-DAD-HBK (PC)

v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

A. HOLGUIN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff LaKeith L. McCoy is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this this civil rights

17
18

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from

19

another settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall

20

J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference on December 15, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The

21

settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom

22

video conference. The court will issue the necessary transportation order in due course. In

23

accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

24

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

25

Newman on December 15, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be

26

conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference.

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

2.

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

2
3

3.

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

4.

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

8

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

9

delivered to the court using the following email address:

10

[e-mail]. Plaintiff shall mail his non-confidential settlement

11

statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street,

12

Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814 so that it arrives at least seven (7) days prior

13

to the settlement conference. The envelope shall be marked “SETTLEMENT

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18
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
1

1

5.

2
3
4

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation
Office at Kern Valley State Prison via facsimile at [phone] or via email.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 11, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3