Solomon v. Felker et al

Filing 150

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/15/2015 SETTING a Settlement Conference for 6/4/2015 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 9 (GGH) before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows. (cc: GGH, ADR) (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VINCENT SOLOMON,

12
13
14

No. 2:08-cv-2544 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

T. FELKER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

18

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

19

conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows for the

20

Court’s Settlement Week program to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court,

21

501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #9 on June 4, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.

22
23

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with
this order.

24

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

25

1. A settlement conference has been set for June 4, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., in Courtroom #9

26

before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,

27

Sacramento, California 95814.

28

1

2. Each party is directed to have a principal capable of disposition at the Settlement

1
2

Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms at the Settlement

3

Conference1.
3. Each party is directed to submit to the chambers of Judge Gregory G. Hollows

4
5

confidential settlement conference statements via email to

6

[e-mail] not later than May 28, 2015. Plaintiff shall mail his

7

confidential settlement statement to arrive not later than May 28, 2015 addressed to

8

Sujean Park, ADR Division, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814.

9

The envelope shall be marked “Settlement Statement.” Such statements are neither to

10

be filed with the Clerk nor served on opposing counsel. However, each party shall file

11

a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)).

12
13

The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length,

14

typed or neatly printed, and include the following:

15
16

a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.

17

b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon

18

which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of

19

prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in

20
21
22
23
24
25
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
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).
1

2

dispute.

1
2

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

3

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and
trial.

4
5

e. The relief sought.

6

f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a
history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

7
8

g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement
conference.

9
10

Dated: April 15, 2015

11
12
13
14
Solo2544.med
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3