Harper v. California Prison Industry Authority et al
Filing
70
ORDER Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/6/19. Settlement Conference set for 11/8/2019 at 08:30 AM at CSP-Corcoran, Judge TBD. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JASON HARPER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
Case No. 1:17-cv-01717-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE ON NOVEMBER 8, 2019
JEFF BLAZO,
15
Defendant.
16
17
Jason Harper (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
18
civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined that this case will
19
benefit from a second settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to a Magistrate
20
Judge to conduct a settlement conference at California State Prison, Corcoran (CSP-COR), 4001 King
21
Avenue, Corcoran, CA 93212, on November 8, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. The Court will issue the necessary
22
transportation order in due course.
23
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
24
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before a federal Magistrate Judge on November
25
26
8, 2019, at CSP-COR.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
27
28
1
1
2
settlement shall attend in person.1
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses, and damages at issue
3
in this case. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to
4
appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will
5
not proceed and will be reset to another date.
6
4. Defendant shall provide a confidential settlement statement to the following email address:
7
settleconf@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement statement to
8
U.S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California, 93721, “Attention: Institution
9
Settlement Judge for November 8, 2019.” The envelope shall be marked “Confidential
10
Settlement Statement.” Settlement statements shall arrive no later than November 1, 2019.
11
Parties shall also file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference
12
Statement (see Local Rule 270(d)). Settlement statements should not be filed with the
13
Clerk of Court nor served on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly
14
marked Aconfidential@ with the date and time of the settlement conference indicated
15
prominently thereon.
16
17
5. The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed
or neatly printed, and include the following:
18
a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.
19
b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon
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 (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, 48586 (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
which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties= likelihood of
2
prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in
3
dispute.
c. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and
4
trial.
5
d. The party=s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a
6
history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
7
e. A brief statement of the party=s expectations and goals for the settlement
8
conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay.
9
f. If the parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims not
10
11
in this suit, give a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above,
12
including case number(s) if applicable.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated:
16
September 6, 2019
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
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?