Henderson v. Felker et al

Filing 180

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/15/13 ORDERING that this case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on November 7, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom No. 9. (see order for details)(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DARREN HENDERSON, No. 2:06-cv-1325-GEB-EFB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 13 T. FELKER, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in a civil rights action pursuant to 17 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been selected by the court for inclusion in the Prisoner 19 Settlement Program. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison 20 to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, 21 California 95814 in Courtroom #9 on November 7, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with 22 23 this order. 24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison 26 on November 7, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 27 Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom No. 9. 28 ///// 1 1 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 2 settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1 3 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 4 The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in 5 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not 6 proceed and will be reset to another date. 7 4. Judge Kellison or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties 8 either by telephone or in person, approximately one week prior to the settlement 9 conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference. 10 5. Court-appointed neutral expert Dr. Frederic B. Kraemer shall stay his review of 11 materials and preparation of a report as ordered on May 22, 2013 (ECF No. 163) 12 pending settlement negotiations. If the parties fail to reach a settlement agreement on 13 November 7, 2013, Dr. Kraemer shall immediately resume his review of records and 14 preparation of a report. 15 6. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to send a copy of this order to Dr. Kraemer 16 17 at Division of Endocrinology, S-025, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305-5103. Dated: October 15, 2013. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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

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?