Townsend v. Sisto et al

Filing 155

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/24/16 ORDERING that a Settlement Conference is set for 8/29/2016 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. The parties are instructed to have a principal wi th full settlement authority present at the settlement conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office at California State Prison, Sacramento, via facsimile at [phone].(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

WILLIAM TOWNSEND

11
12
13

No. 2:09-cv-2342 CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

D.K. SISTO, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference.

17

Therefore, Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney will conduct a settlement conference at

18

California State Prison, Sacramento, 100 Prison Road, Represa, California 95671 on August 29,

19

2016 at 9:30 a.m.

20

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

21

1. A settlement conference has been set for August 29, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. before

22

Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney at California State Prison, Sacramento, 100

23

Prison Road, Represa, California 95671.

24

2. The parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at

25

the settlement conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms.

26

The individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and

27

authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose

28

1

1

behind requiring the attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the

2

parties’ view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An

3

authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be found not to

4

comply with the requirement of full authority to settle1.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office

5

at California State Prison, Sacramento, via facsimile at [phone].

6
7

Dated: August 24, 2016

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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. 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).
1

2