Shepard v. Borum et al

Filing 90

ORDER SCHEDULING Settlement Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 11/3/2021. Settlement Conference (Zoom) set for 1/25/2022 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAMONT SHEPARD,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00277-DAD-HBK
ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT
CONFEFENCE FOR TUESDAY,
JANUARY 25, 2022 AT 10:30 A.M.

M. BORUM, Correctional Officer and J.
ACEBEDO, Correctional Counselor II,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as a

19

prisoner and is currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano. The Court

20

determined this case would benefit from a settlement conference and the parties 30-day period to

21

object has expired. (Doc. No. 32). This case is therefore referred to Magistrate Judge Erica P.

22

Grosjean to conduct a settlement conference, which is scheduled to occur on January 25, 2022 at

23

10:30 a.m.

24

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

25

1. A settlement conference is scheduled to occur on January 25, 2022 at 10:30 a.m.

26

before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean at the U.S. District Court, 2500 Tulare

27

Street, Fresno, California 93721 by Zoom videoconference.

28

1

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
settlement agreement shall attend.1

2
3

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

4

issue in the case. The failure of any counsel, party, or authorized person subject to this

5

order to appear may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference

6

will not proceed and will be reset to another date.

7

4. Defendants shall provide a confidential settlement statement no later than January 18,

8

2022 to the following email address: [e-mail]. Plaintiff shall

9

mail his confidential settlement statement, clearly captioned “Confidential Settlement

10

Conference Statement,” Attn: Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean, United States

11

District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501, Fresno, CA 93721 so that it arrives no

12

later than January 18, 2022. Parties shall also file a Notice of Submission of

13

Confidential Settlement Conference Statement (see Local Rule 270(d)).

14

5.

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

15

any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with

16

the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.

17

6.

The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length,

18

typed or neatly printed, and include the following:

19

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

20

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

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 (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

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.

4

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

5

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

6
7

history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
e. A brief statement of the party’s expectations and goals for the settlement

8
9

conference, including how much the party is willing to accept and/or willing to

10

pay.

11

f. If the parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims

12

not in this suit, a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above,

13

including case number(s) if applicable.

14

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

15

at Kern Valley State Prison.

16
17

Dated:

November 3, 2021
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Cc: Michelle Rooney, CRD

28
3