Bartholomew v. Moore et al

Filing 56

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 06/07/12 ordering ( Settlement Conference set for 7/13/2012 at 11:00 AM at California State Prison Solano, 2100 Peabody Road, Vacaville, CA 95696 before Magistrate Judge Nandor J Vadas.) The clerk of the court shall serve a copy of this order on the litigation office at California State Prison Solano at 707-454-3429. (See order for further details)(cc: Judge Vadas)(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

KEVIN BARTHOLOMEW,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,

No. 2:08-cv-3058 KJM CKD P

vs.
TERRY MOORE, et al.,

12

ORDER SETTING

Defendants.

13

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
/

14

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

15

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined this case would benefit from

16

inclusion in the court’s prisoner case settlement program. This case will be referred to

17

Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas to conduct a settlement conference at California State Prison-

18

Solano (CSP-SOL), on July 13, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1. This case is set for a settlement conference on July 13, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. at

21

CSP-SOL, 2100 Peabody Road, Vacaville, California 95696.

22
23

2. Defendants’ lead counsel and a person with full and unlimited authority to
negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

24
1

25
26

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
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

and will be reset to another date.

5

4. The parties are directed to provide confidential settlement conference

6

statements to the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas, U.S. District Court-Northern District of California,

7

514 H Street, Eureka, CA 95502 or via email at [e-mail], so that they arrive

8

no later than June 29, 2012 and file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement

9

Conference Statement (See Local Rule 270(d)).

10

Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the court nor served

11

on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date

12

and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.

13
14

The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in
length, typed or neatly printed, and include the following:

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

20

/////

21
22
23
24
25
26

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

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

3

e. The relief sought.

4

f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and

5

offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

6
7

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

8
9
10

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation
Office at CSP-SOL at [phone].
Dated: June 7, 2012

11

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15

1
bart3058.med

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