Manago v. Davey et al

Filing 96

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/19/17. Settlement Conference set for 1/18/2018 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEWART MANAGO, 12 1:16-cv-00399-LJO-GSA-PC Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 D. DAVEY, et al., ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 15 Defendants. 16 Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 18 pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has 19 determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be 20 referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. 21 District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721 in Courtroom #8 on January 18, 2018 22 at 9:30 a.m. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. 25 McAuliffe on January 18, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare 26 Street, Fresno, California 93721 in Courtroom #8. 27 28 /// 1 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 1 settlement shall attend in person.1 2 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 3 4 The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in 5 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not 6 proceed and will be reset to another date. 4. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement statement to the following email 7 8 address: Plaintiff may mail his confidential settlement 9 statement Attention: Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe, U. S. District Court, 10 2500 Tulare Street, Suite 1501, Fresno, California 93721. The envelope shall be 11 marked “Confidential Settlement Statement”. Settlement statements shall arrive no 12 later than January 11, 2018. Parties shall also file a Notice of Submission of 13 Confidential Settlement Statement (See Local Rule 270(d)). 14 15 Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on 16 any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked Aconfidential@ with 17 the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. 18 19 The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, 20 typed or neatly printed, and include the following: 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, 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 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 2 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds 3 upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties= 4 likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the 5 major issues in dispute. 6 c. A summary of the proceedings to date. 7 d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and trial. 8 e. The relief sought. 9 f. The party=s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 10 history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 11 g. A brief statement of each party=s expectations and goals for the settlement 12 13 conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to 14 pay. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 19, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?