(PC) Cornel Jackson v. Quick et al

Filing 68

ORDER Setting Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 04/26/2021. Zoom Settlement Conference set for 5/25/2021 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CORNEL JACKSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:19-cv-01591-NONE-EPG (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

JASON QUICK, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Cornel Jackson (“Plaintiff”), a pretrial detainee, is proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The court has determined that this

19

case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate

20

Judge Dennis M. Cota to conduct a settlement conference on May 25, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. The

21

settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom

22

video conference. The Court will issue the necessary 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 Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota

25

on May 25, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote

26

means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference.

27
28

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

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person1.

1
2

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

3

The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in

4

person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not

5

proceed and will be reset to another date.

6

4. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than May 18,

7

2021 to [e-mail]. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement

8

statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota, USDC CAED, 2986 Bechelli Lane,

9

Suite 300, Redding, California 96002 so it arrives no later than May 18, 2021. The

10

envelope shall be marked “CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.”

11

Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement

12

Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)).

13
14

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
18

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

19

typed or neatly printed, and include the following:

20

///

21
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

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

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

2

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

3

which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of

4

prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in

5

dispute.

6

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

7

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

8

trial.

9

e. The relief sought.
f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a

10
11

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

12
13

conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay.

14

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

15

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

16

including case number(s) if applicable.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 26, 2021

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3