Melvin R. Brummett, Jr. v. J. Rivero

Filing 17

ORDER SETTING Settlement Conference on September 18, 2017 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/11/2017. Settlement Conference set for 9/18/2017 at 08:30 AM at CSP-Corcoran before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT, JR., 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. Case No.: 1:17-cv-00639-SAB (PC) ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2017 J. RIVERO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Melvin Ray Brummett, Jr. is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As set forth in the screening order, Plaintiff has stated a 19 potentially cognizable civil rights claim. Thus, the Court will stay this action to allow the parties to 20 investigate Plaintiff’s claims, meet and confer, and then participate in an early settlement conference. 21 Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe to conduct a settlement 22 conference at the California State Prison, Corcoran (CSP-COR), 4001 King Avenue, Corcoran, CA 23 93212 on September 18, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. The Court will issue the necessary transportation order in 24 due course. 25 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. This action is stayed until September 18, 2017, to allow the parties an opportunity to 27 settle their dispute before a responsive pleading is filed, or the discovery process 28 begins. Except as provided herein or by subsequent court order, no other pleadings or 1 1 other documents may be filed in this case during the stay of this action. The parties 2 shall not engage in formal discovery, but the parties may elect to engage in informal 3 discovery. 2. 4 This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on September 18, 2017, at CSP-COR. 5 3. 6 A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement shall attend in person.1 7 4. 8 Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 9 The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in 10 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not 11 proceed and will be reset to another date. 5. 12 Defendants shall provide a confidential settlement statement to the following email 13 address: Plaintiff shall mail his confidential 14 settlement statement to U.S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California, 15 93721, “Attention: Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe.” The envelope shall 16 be marked “Confidential Settlement Statement”. Settlement statements shall arrive no 17 later than September 11, 2017. Parties shall also file a Notice of Submission of 18 Confidential Settlement Statement (See Local Rule 270(d)). Settlement statements 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 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 should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on any other party. 2 Settlement statements shall be clearly marked Aconfidential@ with the date and time of 3 the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. 6. 4 The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed or neatly printed, and include the following: 5 6 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 7 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon 8 which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of 9 prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in dispute. 10 c. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and trial. 11 d. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 12 e. 13 A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay. 14 7. 15 If the parties are unable to settle this action during the September 18, 2017 settlement conference, Defendants shall file a responsive pleading on or before October 9, 2017. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: 20 July 11, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?