(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)

Download PDF
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 dmcorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 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

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?