Smith v. Youngblood, et al

Filing 33

ORDER Changing Location of the Settlement Conference; ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/14/2016. Settlement conference set for 1/25/2017 at 09:30 AM at the United States Courthouse, 510 19th Street, Bakersfield. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
WESTON ANTHONY SMITH,

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17

Related to the settlement conference set on January 25, 2017, the Court ORDERS:

18

1.

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Defendants.

15

19
20

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01749 MCE JLT
ORDER CHANGING LOCATION OF THE
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER
REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

The settlement conference will occur at the United States Courthouse, located at 510

19th Street, Bakersfield, CA.
2.

Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the Court, the attorneys who will try the case

21

shall appear at the Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons having full

22

authority to negotiate and settle the case on any terms1 at the conference. Consideration of settlement

23

is a serious matter that requires preparation prior to the settlement conference. Set forth below are the

24

procedures the Court will employ, absent good cause, in conducting the conference:
a.

25

At least 21 days before the settlement conference, Plaintiff SHALL submit to

26
27
28

1

Insurance carriers, business organizations, and governmental bodies or agencies whose settlement agreements
are subject to approval by legislative bodies, executive committees, boards of directors or the like shall be represented by
a person or persons who occupy high executive positions in the party organization and who will be directly involved in
the process of approval of any settlement offers or agreements. To the extent possible the representative shall have the
authority, if he or she deems it appropriate, to settle the action on terms consistent with the opposing party’s most recent
demand.

1

Defendant via fax or e-mail, a written itemization of damages and a meaningful settlement

2

demand which includes a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate;
b.

3

Thereafter, no later than 14 days before the settlement conference, Defendant

4

SHALL respond, via fax or e-mail, with an acceptance of the offer or with a meaningful2

5

counteroffer, which includes a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate.
c.

6

If settlement is not achieved, each party SHALL attach copies of their

7

settlement offers to their Confidential Settlement Conference Statement, as described below.

8

Copies of these documents shall not be filed on the court docket.
d.

9

No later than January 18, 2017 the Settlement Conference, the parties shall

10

submit, directly to Judge Thurston’s chambers by e-mail to [e-mail], a

11

Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. The statement should not be filed with the

12

Clerk of the Court nor served on any other party, although the parties may file a Notice of

13

Lodging of Settlement Conference Statement. Each statement shall be clearly marked

14

“confidential” with the date and time of the Settlement Conference indicated prominently

15

thereon;
e.

16

The Confidential Settlement Conference Statement shall include the following:

17

A.

A brief statement of the facts of the case;

18

B.

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

19

grounds upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the

20

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

21

the major issues in dispute;

22

C.

A summary of the proceedings to date;

23

D.

An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery,

24

pretrial and trial;

25

E.

26

///

27

The relief sought;

///

28

2

“Meaningful” means that the offer is reasonably calculated to settle the case on terms acceptable to the offering
party. “Meaningful” does not include an offer which bears no rationale relationship to the likely outcome of the case or
that which the offering party knows will not be acceptable to the other party.

The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers

1

F.

2

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 14, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE