Harris v. Higgins et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 06/27/17 ordering ( Settlement Conference set for 8/21/2017 at 09:00 AM at California State Prison, Sacramento before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.) The parties are directed to exchange non- confidential settlement statements seven days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered to the Court using the following email address: firstname.lastname@example.org. Plaintiff shall mail his non-confid ential settlement statement to arrive not less than seven days prior to the settlement conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall be marked Settlement Statement. If a party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to theprovisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). (cc: KJN) (Plummer, M) Modified on 6/28/2017 (Plummer, M).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DEVONTE B. HARRIS,
No. 2:08-cv-1711-EFB P
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
KEITH HIGGINS, et al.,
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 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 Kendall J. Newman to conduct a
settlement conference at California State Prison, Sacramento, 100 Prison Road, Represa,
California 95671 on August 21, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J.
Newman on August 21, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. at California State Prison, Sacramento, 100
Prison Road, Represa, California 95671.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.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
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. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days
prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered
to the Court using the following email address: email@example.com.
Plaintiff shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement to arrive not less than
seven days prior to the settlement conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall
J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The
envelope shall be marked “Settlement Statement.” 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).
DATED: June 27, 2017.
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).
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?