Gonzalez v. Razo et al

Filing 113

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference,signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 02/1/18. (Settlement Conference set for 4/11/2018 at 09:30 AM in Bakersfield, 510 19th Street before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston) (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ, 11 Case No. 1:15-cv-01098-DAD-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 J. RAZO, et al., 14 ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Defendants. 15 16 Manuel Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner, and is the plaintiff in this civil rights 17 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes attendant state law claims. Plaintiff is 18 represented by attorney Stanley Goff. 19 The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. 20 Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston to conduct a 21 settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California, 93301, 22 on April 11, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.1 The Court will issue the necessary transportation writ in due 23 course. 24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. 26 Thurston on April 11, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 510 19th Street, 27 28 1 No Fresno magistrate judges were available to handle the settlement conference during the week of April 9, 2018. 1 Bakersfield, California, 93301. 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 5 issue in this case. The failure of any counsel, party, or authorized person subject to 6 this order to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, 7 the conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date. 8 4. At least 21 days before the settlement conference, Plaintiff SHALL submit to 9 Defendants a written itemization of damages and a meaningful settlement demand, 10 which includes a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate, not to 11 exceed ten pages in length. Thereafter, no later than 14 days before the settlement 12 conference, Defendant SHALL respond, by telephone or in person, with an acceptance 13 of the offer or with a meaningful counteroffer, which includes a brief explanation of 14 why such a settlement is appropriate. If settlement is achieved, defense counsel is to 15 immediately inform the courtroom deputy of Judge Thurston. 16 5. If settlement is not achieved informally, each party shall provide a confidential 17 settlement statement to the following email address: jltorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 18 Settlement statements shall arrive no later than April 4, 2018. Parties shall also file a 19 Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement (See L.R. 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 1 270(d)). Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of Court nor 2 served on any other party. 3 “confidential” with the date and time of the settlement conference indicated 4 prominently thereon. 5 Settlement statements shall be clearly marked 6. The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, 6 typed or neatly printed, and include the following: 7 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 8 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon 9 which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the party’s likelihood of 10 prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in 11 dispute. 12 c. A summary of the proceedings to date. 13 d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and trial. 14 15 e. The relief sought. 16 f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 17 g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 18 conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay. 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 1, 2018 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?