Garrett v. Davey, et al.
ORDER ADVANCING Settlement Conference and SETTING New Settlement Conference Procedures signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/4/2017. Settlement Conference set for 11/2/2017 at 09:00 AM at 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARCUS LEWIS GARRETT,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00636-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADVANCING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE AND SETTING NEW
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PROCEDURES
D. DAVEY and RUBIN RUIZ,
Marcus Lewis Garrett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court previously set a settlement
conference in this case. (ECF No. 32, p. 5). The settlement conference will now be heard on
November 2, 2017, at 9:00 a.m, will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, and will be
held at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814, in Courtroom #25.
The updated settlement conference procedures are described below.
A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with this
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on
November 2, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. at the United States District Court, 501 I Street,
Sacramento, California 95814, in Courtroom #25.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
settlement shall attend in person.1
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses, and damages at issue
in this case. The failure of any counsel, party, or authorized person subject to this order to
appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will
not proceed and will be reset to another date.
4. Judge Newman, or another representative from the Court, will be contacting the parties
either by telephone or in person approximately two weeks prior to the settlement
conference to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 4, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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).
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?