Smith v. Sahota et al

Filing 76

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/31/12 granting 74 Motion to modify scheduling order. A settlement conference is set for 02/07/13 at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison in courtroom 2. (cc: CMK)(Plummer, M) Modified on 10/31/2012 (Plummer, M).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
GREGORY SMITH,

Case No. 2:10-cv-0762 KJM CKD P

12
Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING CASE AND SETTING
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

13
v.
14
15

PREETRANJAN SAHOTA, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

The Court has considered defendants’ second request to modify the scheduling order

19

so as to allow the parties to engage in settlement talks. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

20

ORDERED THAT:

21

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (Dkt. No. 74) is granted;

22

2. A settlement conference in this matter is set for 9 a.m. on February 7, 2013 before

23

the Honorable Craig M. Kellison at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento 95814 in

24

Courtroom #2;

25
26
27
28

3. 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. i
4. 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

1

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

2

will be reset to another date.

3
4

5. Deadlines for plaintiff’s deposition, responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests, and
dispositive motions are stayed pending mediation, to be reset after mediation if necessary.

5
6

Dated: October 31, 2012
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

234b0d4o
i

23
24
25
26
27
28

The individuals attending the mediation 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 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. Pittman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D.
481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003). 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).