Sahibi v. Gonzales. et al.

Filing 124

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/16/2017. Settlement Conference set for 11/17/2017 at Corcoran State Prison at 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OUSSAMA SAHIBI,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01581-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE ON NOVEMBER 17, 2017

BORJAS GONZALES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit

19

from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge

20

Stanley A. Boone to conduct a settlement conference at the California State Prison,

21

Corcoran (CSP-COR), 4001 King Avenue, Corcoran, CA 93212 on November 17, 2017, at

22

9:00 a.m. The Court will issue the necessary transportation order in due course.

23

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Stanley A.

25
26

Boone on November 17, 2017, at CSP-COR.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a

27
28
1

binding settlement shall attend in person.1

1
2

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

3

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

4

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

5

conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.
4. Parties shall provide a confidential settlement statement to the following email

6
7

address: [e-mail].

Plaintiff shall mail his confidential

8

settlement statement to U.S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California,

9

93721, “Attention: Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.” The envelope shall be

10

marked “Confidential Settlement Statement”. Settlement statements shall arrive

11

no later than November 10, 2017. Parties shall also file a Notice of Submission of

12

Confidential Settlement Statement (See Local Rule 270(d)).

13

statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on any

14

other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked Aconfidential@ with the

15

date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.

Settlement

5. The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in

16

length, typed or neatly printed, and include the following:

17

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

18
19
20
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
(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, 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

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

2

upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties=

3

likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the

4

major issues in dispute.
c. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery,

5

pretrial, and trial.

6

d. The party=s position on settlement, including present demands and offers

7

and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

8
9

e. A brief statement of each party=s expectations and goals for the settlement

10

conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to

11

pay.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated:

October 16, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3