Wiseman v. Doe et al

Filing 37

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/30/18. Settlement Conference set for 1/25/2019 at 01:30 PM in Bakersfield, 510 19th Street before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHESTER RAY WISEMAN,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

1:17-cv-01166-AWI-JLT (PC)
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

v.
J. GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

The parties responded to this Court’s order referring the case to the post-screening ADR

18

project that they believed a settlement conference would be beneficial in this case. (Docs. 34,

19

35.) The Court concurs; therefore, this case will be set for a settlement conference before the

20

undersigned at the U. S. District Court, 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California 93301 in

21

Courtroom #6 on January 25, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad

22

testificandum will issue.

23

In accordance with the above, the Court ORDERS:

24

1. A further settlement conference is set for January 25, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., before

25

Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston at the U. S. District Court, 510 19th Street,

26

Bakersfield, California 93301.

27

2. Defendants’ lead counsel and a person with full and unlimited authority to negotiate

28
1

1

and enter into a binding settlement on defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

proceed and will be reset to another date.

6

4. Defendants are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than

7

January 15, 2019 to [e-mail]. The Court has already received

8

Plaintiff’s confidential settlement statement. However, if Plaintiff feels he has not

9

adequately addressed one of the required topics listed below, he may send a brief

10

additional statement to the court at the above address so it arrives no later than January

11

15, 2019. The envelope shall be marked “Confidential Settlement Statement.” If a

12

party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do

13

so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). Parties are also directed to

14

file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement.” (See L.R.

15

270(d).)

16

Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on any

17

other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date and time

18

of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. The confidential settlement

19

statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed or neatly printed, and include the

20

following:

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 (9 th 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

2

1

a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.

2

b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon

3

which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of

4

prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in

5

dispute.

6

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

7

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and
trial.

8

e. The relief sought.

9

f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a

10

history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

11

g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement

12

conference.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 30, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3