Clinton v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 570

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 9/9/2015 ORDERING a Settlement Conference set for 9/24/2015 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom #5, US District Court, Central District of California, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 before Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on the defendants' behalf shall attend in person. (cc US Magistrate Bianchini) (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

THOMAS CLINTON,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:05-cv-1600-MCE-CMK-P

vs.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15
Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

16
17

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement

18

conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini to

19

conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana,

20

California 92701-4516 in Courtroom #5 on September 24, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.

21

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

22

1. A settlement conference has been set for September 24, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. in

23

Courtroom #5 before Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini at the U. S. District Court,

24

411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California 92701-4516.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding

25

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person1.

26
27
28

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
1

1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

proceed and will be reset to another date.

5

Dated: September 9, 2015

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

conferences… .” United States v. United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051,
1053, 1057, 1059 (9th 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. Pittman 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