Dickson v. Gomez et al

Filing 77

ORDER SETTING Settlement Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/9/2021. Settlement Conference set for 11/4/2021 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.(Sant Agata, S)

Case 1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM Document 77 Filed 08/09/21 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

CHRISTOPHER DICKSON,

13

Case No. 1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

GOMEZ, et al.,

16

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Christopher Dickson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

19

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined

20

that this case will benefit from another settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be

21

referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference on

22

November 4, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote means,

23

with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. The Court will issue the necessary

24

transportation order in due course.

25

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

26

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

27

Newman on November 4, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be

28

conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference.
1

Case 1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM Document 77 Filed 08/09/21 Page 2 of 3
1
2

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

3
4

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

5

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

6

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

7

proceed and will be reset to another date.

8

4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days

9

prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered

10

to the court using the following email address: [e-mail]. Plaintiff

11

shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Kendall J.

12

Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814 so that it

13

arrives at least seven (7) days prior to the settlement conference. The envelope shall

14

be marked “SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” The date and time of the settlement

15

conference shall be prominently indicated on the settlement statement. If a party

16

desires to share additional confidential information with the court, they may do so

17

pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

///

22
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).
1

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Case 1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM Document 77 Filed 08/09/21 Page 3 of 3
1
2

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office

3

at the California Correctional Institution, via facsimile at [phone] or by email.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 9, 2021

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3