(PC) Frank E. Peters v. Norris Hollie et al
ORDER Setting Settlement Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 09/08/2021. Settlement Conference set for 1/18/2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (SKO) before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto.(Flores, E)
Case 1:18-cv-01230-NONE-EPG Document 107 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRANK E. PETERS,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01230-NONE-EPG (PC)
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
NORRIS HOLLIE, et al.,
Frank E. Peters (“Plaintiff”) is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this action. The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference.
Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto to conduct a settlement
conference on January 18, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by
remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. The Court will issue the
order detailing the procedures for the settlement conference in due course.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto
on January 18, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by
remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
Case 1:18-cv-01230-NONE-EPG Document 107 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 2
settlement shall attend.1
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses, and damages at
issue in this case. The failure of any counsel, party, or authorized person subject to
this order to appear may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the
conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 8, 2021
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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).
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?