Underwood v. Cox et al

Filing 56

ORDER re SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/10/2018. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ANDRE UNDERWOOD,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

1:16-cv-00597-LJO EPG (PC)

v.

ORDER RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

R. COX, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
Plaintiff, Andre Underwood, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

15
16

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 16, 2018, the magistrate judge

17

assigned to this action scheduled a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Sheila K.

18

Oberto at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721 in Courtroom #7

19

on May 31, 2018, at 10:30 a.m. An order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue

20

separately.

21

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

22

1. A settlement conference is set for May 31, 2018, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom #7 before

23

Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street,

24

Fresno, California 93721.

25

2. Defendants’ lead counsel and a person with full and unlimited authority to negotiate

26

and enter into a binding settlement on defendants’ behalf shall attend in person 1.

27
28

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,

1

1

1

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

2

The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in

3

person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not

4

proceed and will be reset to another date.

5

4. The parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than May

6

24, 2018, to [e-mail]. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential

7

settlement statement to the Chambers of Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto, USDC

8

CAED, 2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501, Fresno, California 93721 so it arrives no later

9

than May 24, 2018. The envelope shall be marked “Confidential Settlement

10

Statement.” If a party desires to share additional confidential information with the

11

Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). Parties

12

are also directed to file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement”

13

(See L.R. 270(d)).

14

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

15

other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date and time

16

of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. The confidential settlement

17

statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed or neatly printed, and include the

18

following:

19

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

20

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

21

which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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

prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in

2

dispute.

3

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

4

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and
trial.

5
6

e. The relief sought.

7

f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a
history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

8

g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement

9

conference.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 10, 2018

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

14

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3