Dillingham v. Garcia et al

Filing 131

ORDER SETTING Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/15/2020. Settlement Conference set for 1/26/2021 at 9:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JERRY DILLINGHAM, 13 14 15 Case No. 1:18-cv-00579-NONE-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE F. GARCIA, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Jerry Dillingham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding with limited purpose counsel 19 for settlement in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has 20 determined that this case will benefit from another settlement conference. Therefore, this case 21 will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference on 22 January 26, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, to 23 be determined at a later date and time. 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 case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 27 Newman on January 26, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be 28 conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. 1 1 2 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on Defendant’s behalf shall attend the conference.1 3 4 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses, and damages at 5 issue in this case. The failure of any counsel, party, or authorized person subject to 6 this order to appear may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the 7 conference will not 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: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. If a 11 party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do 12 so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). 13 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office at 14 Kern Valley State Prison, via facsimile at (661) 720-4949 or via email. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 15, 2020 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 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 (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 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?