Martinez v. Hoover, et al
Filing
96
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/6/17 ORDERING that a Settlement Conference is SET for 10/18/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days prior to the settlement conference. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
ARCHIE A. MARTINEZ,
13
14
15
No. 09-cv-0680-KJM-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
G. HOOVER, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding with counsel, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
19
U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference.
20
Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a
21
settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in
22
Courtroom #25 on October 18, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
23
24
A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with
this order.
25
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
26
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J.
27
Newman on October 18, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,
28
Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.
1
1
2
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
3
4
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages.
5
The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in
6
person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not
7
proceed and will be reset to another date.
8
4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days
9
prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered
10
to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. If a
11
party desires to share additional confidential information with the court, they may do
12
so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).
13
DATED: July 6, 2017
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
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. 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
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?