Ortiz v. Garza

Filing 42

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference, DENYING Defendant's Request to Stay Action and GRANTING 41 Motion for 10-Day Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 02/08/17. (Case Management Deadline: 10-Day Deadline, Settlement Conference set for 4/6/2017 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman) (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE A. ORTIZ, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:15-cv-01370-DAD-JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO STAY ACTION, and GRANTING 10-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME Defendant. (Doc. 41) v. B. GARZA, 16 17 On February 6, 2017, Defendant filed a request for a settlement conference to be 18 scheduled and requested the action be stayed, or that the deadline for service of responses to 19 Plaintiff’s discovery, due that day, be extended to March 24, 2017. (Doc. 41.) 20 The Court has determined that this case would benefit from a settlement conference. 21 Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a 22 settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in 23 Courtroom #25 on April 6, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad 24 testificandum will issue approximately a month prior to that date. 25 However, Defendant provides no basis for waiting until the day before discovery 26 responses were due to ask for an extension, other than an implied belief that the case will settle 27 and that many of Plaintiff’s requests “are objectionable.” This does not amount to good cause. 28 Thus, Defendant is given a 10 day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s outstanding 1 1 2 discovery. Alternatively, within that same time, Defendant may contact Plaintiff to secure a 3 longer extension of time or may file a motion showing good cause for the extension. In 4 accordance with the above, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 6 Newman on April 6, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 7 Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25; 8 2. A representative with full authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on the defendant’s behalf shall attend in person1; 9 10 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 11 The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in 12 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not 13 proceed and will be reset to another date; 14 4. Defendant is granted 10 days from the date of service of this order to respond to 15 Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery; alternatively, within that same time, Defendant may 16 secure further extension from Plaintiff or file a renewed motion provided that the it 17 demonstrates good cause for the extension of time. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 20 February 8, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 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 (9 th 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 2 3 4 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

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?