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)

Download PDF
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 SKOorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 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

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?