Palacios v. Beard et al
Filing
29
ORDER Setting Settlement Conference on 6/9/2017 at 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 05/16/2017. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FRANCISCO PALACIOS,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
1:16-cv-00634-DAD-MJS (PC)
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE ON JUNE 9, 2017
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
Plaintiff Francisco Palacios is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis
18
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this
19
case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to
20
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone to conduct a settlement conference at the California
21
State Prison, Corcoran (CSP-COR), 4001 King Avenue, Corcoran, CA 93212 on June 9,
22
2017, at 8:30 a.m. The court will issue the necessary transportation order concurrently with
23
this order.
24
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
25
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Stanley A.
26
27
Boone on June 9, 2017, at CSP-COR.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a
28
1
binding settlement shall attend in person.1
1
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and
2
3
damages. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this
4
order to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the
5
conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.
4. Defendants shall provide a confidential settlement statement to the following email
6
7
address: saborders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential
8
settlement statement to U.S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California,
9
93721, “Attention: Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.” The envelope shall be
10
marked “Confidential Settlement Statement”. Settlement statements shall arrive
11
no later than June 5, 2017. Parties shall also file a Notice of Submission of
12
Confidential Settlement Statement (See Local Rule 270(d)). Settlement
13
statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on any
14
other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked Aconfidential@ with the
15
date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.
16
5. The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in
length, typed or neatly printed, and include the following:
17
a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.
18
19
1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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, 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
b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds
2
upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties=
3
likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the
4
major issues in dispute.
c. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery,
5
pretrial, and trial.
6
d. The party=s position on settlement, including present demands and offers
7
and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
8
e. A brief statement of each party=s expectations and goals for the settlement
9
10
conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to
11
pay.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated:
May 16, 2017
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?