Nelson v. Runnels et al

Filing 132

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/20/13 ordering ( Settlement Conference set for 2/25/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.) The parties are required to file a signed waiver of disqu alification, no later than 12/05/13. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements 7 days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered to the court using the following email address: [e-mail]. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAYMOND PAUL NELSON,

12
13
14

No. 2:06-cv-1289 LKK KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER SETTING
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, proceeding through counsel in this civil rights action

18

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties, in their Further Joint Status Report, requested the

19

court appoint a magistrate judge for purposes of a settlement conference. As both parties have

20

agreed to participate in a settlement conference before the presiding magistrate judge, this case

21

will be set for a settlement conference on February 25, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. District

22

Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814, in Courtroom #25, before the undersigned

23

magistrate judge.

24
25
26
27
28

The parties will be required to file a signed Waiver of Disqualification (included below),
no later than December 5, 2013.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate
judge on Tuesday, February 25, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street,
1

1

Sacramento, California 95814, in Courtroom #25 (8th floor).

2
3

2. The parties are required to file a signed waiver of Disqualification, no later than
December 5, 2013.

4
5

3. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a
binding settlement on defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

will be reset to another date.

10

5. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements

11

seven days prior to this settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be

12

delivered to the court using the following email address: [e-mail]. If a party

13

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

14

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

15
16

SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 20, 2013

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/nels1289.med

1 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 (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

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

RAYMOND PAUL NELSON,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:06-cv-1289 LKK KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

WAIVER OF DISQUALIFICATION

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Under Local Rule 270(b) of the Eastern District of California, the parties to the herein

17

action affirmatively request that Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman participate in the

18

settlement conference scheduled for February 25, 2014. Should the parties consent to trial of the

19

case before the assigned Magistrate Judge, they waive any claim of disqualification to the

20

assigned Magistrate Judge trying the case thereafter.

21
22
23
24
25

___________________________
By:
Attorney for Plaintiff
Dated:______________________

26

___________________________
By:
Attorney for Defendants

27

Dated:______________________

28
3