Cooper v. Kaur, et al

Filing 92

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/17/12 ordering ( Settlement Conference set for 1/17/2013 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 2 before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison.) (cc: CMK) (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TROY COOPER,

11

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

12
13

No. 2:10-cv-1057 DAD P

ORDER SETTING
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON
JANUARY 17, 2013 AT 1:00 P.M.

vs.
KAUR, et al.,

14

/
15
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42
16
U.S.C. § 1983. On July 6, 2012, the undersigned issued an order requiring the parties to inform
17
the court whether they wished to proceed with a mandatory settlement conference before the
18
undersigned or have the case referred to the court’s mediation program. On July 18, 2012,
19
plaintiff filed a declaration requesting referral to the court mediation program. On July 26, 2012,
20
defendant filed a declaration which requested to have a judge other than the undersigned preside
21
over a settlement conference in this case.
22
Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison to
23
conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California
24
95814 in Courtroom #2 on January 17, 2013 at 1:00 p.m.
25
/////
26
1

1
2

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

3

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

4

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M.

5

Kellison on January 17, 2013, at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,

6

California 95814 in Courtroom #2;

7
8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

and will be reset to another date.

13

DATED: October 17, 2012.

14
15
16

DAD:dpw
coop1057.med

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

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, __F.3d__, 2012 WL 3984406 at *1 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2012), amended
by, __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 4873595 (9th Cir. Oct. 16, 2012). The term “full authority to settle”
means that the individuals attending the settlement 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, 1396-97 (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., Civ. No. 02-1886, 2003 WL 23353478 (D. Ariz. Oct. 3, 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. See Pitman, 216 F.R.D. at 486.
2