Hunt v. Reyes et al

Filing 210

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 9/25/2017 ORDERING this case is set for a Settlement Conference for 12/7/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

MICHAEL A. HUNT,
Plaintiff,
v.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER SETTING
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

M. REYES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

No. 2:08-cv-0181 MCE CKD P

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in an action brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference.
Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire to conduct a settlement
conference at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom
#26 on December 7, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with
this order.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Allison
Claire on December 7, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,
California 95814 in Courtroom #26.

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a
binding settlement on defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and
damages. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in
person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not proceed and
will be reset to another date.
4. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement conference statement to the
Court using the following email address: [e-mail]. If a party desires to share
additional confidential information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of
Local Rule 270(d) and (e). Statements are due at least 7 days prior to the Settlement Conference.
Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served
on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date
and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.
The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length,
typed or neatly printed, and include the following:
a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.

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

1While 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. 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).
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other
grounds upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of
the parties’ likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a
description of the major issues in dispute.
c. A summary of the proceedings to date.
d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery,
pretrial, and trial.
e. The relief sought.
f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and
offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the
settlement conference.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2017

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3