Scally v. Arsaunt et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/12/2018 setting a Settlement Conference for 4/12/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TONY EUGENE SCALLY,

11

Case No. 1:16-cv-01237-AWI-MJS

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

N. ARSUANT,

14

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case

18

will benefit from a settlement conference.

19

Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S.

20

District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on April 12,

21

2018 at 9:00 a.m.

22
23

Therefore, this case will be referred to

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue a month
before the settlement conference date.

24

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

25

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall

26

J. Newman on April 12, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I

27

Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.

28

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a
1

1
binding settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

2
3

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

4

damages. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to

5

this order to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In

6

addition, the conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.

7

4. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement statement seven (7) days

8

prior to the settlement conference. Defendants shall submit via email to the

9

following address: [e-mail].

Plaintiff shall submit via

10

mail to arrive seven (7) days prior to the settlement conference to: Attn:

11

Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200,

12

Sacramento, California 95814.

13

5. Judge Newman or another representative from the court will be contacting the

14

parties either by telephone or in person, approximately two weeks prior to the

15

settlement conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement

16

conference.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

January 12, 2018

/s/

20

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
1

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
th
1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9 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
th
Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7 Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d
th
1385, 1396 (9 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
th
(8 Cir. 2001).

2