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)

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: [e-mail]. 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