Barboza v. Stengel

Filing 26

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 06/12/2019. Settlement Conference set for 9/19/2019 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

MARK LEE BARBOZA,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

Case No. 1:18-cv-00580-LJO-EPG (PC)

v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

SEAN STENGEL,

16

Defendant.

17
18

Mark Lee Barboza (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 10, 2019, defense

20

counsel was ordered to contact the Court’s Alternate Dispute Resolution Coordinator to arrange

21

for a settlement conference. (ECF No. 25). Defense counsel has contacted the Court’s ADR

22

Coordinator and this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a

23

settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, in

24

Courtroom #25 on September 19, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.1 The Court will issue the necessary

25

transportation order in due course.

26

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J.

28

1

While this date is outside the ninety-day deadline ordered by the Court (ECF No. 25), the Court hereby
extends the deadline to allow the settlement conference to be held on this date.

1

1
2

Newman on September 19, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,

3

Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #25.

4

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.2

5
6

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

7

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

8

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

9

conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.

10

4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days

11

prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered

12

to the Court using the following email address: [e-mail].

13

Plaintiff shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge

14

Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814,

15

so that it arrives at least seven (7) days prior to the settlement conference. The

16

envelope shall be marked “SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” The date and time of the

17

settlement conference shall be prominently indicated on the settlement statement. If a

18

party desires to share confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant

19

to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

20

5. Judge Newman or another representative from the Court will be contacting the parties

21

either by telephone or in person, approximately two weeks prior to the settlement

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).
2

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1
conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.

2
3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 12, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3