Mitchell v. Williams et al

Filing 69

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/12/14: Settlement Conference set for 3/14/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. Submission of confidential settlement conference statement no later than 2/28/14. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LACY MITCHELL,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:10-cv-01829 KJM DAD P

v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

DeBRINA WILLIAMS,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding through counsel in this civil rights action

17
18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney

19

to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,

20

California 95814 in Courtroom #24 on March 14, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.

21

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

22

1.

This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K.

23

Delaney on March 14, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,

24

California 95814 in Courtroom #24.
2.

25
26

A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a

binding settlement shall attend in person.1

27
1

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
1

1

3.

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

2

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

3

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

4

reset to another date.

5

4.

Each party shall provide a confidential settlement statement to Sujean Park, ADR

6

Division, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814, or by email to

7

[e-mail] so they arrive no later than February 28, 2014 and file a Notice of

8

Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement (See L.R. 270(d)).

9

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

10

other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date and time

11

of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.

12
13

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

14

a.

A brief statement of the facts of the case.

15

b.

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

16

which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of prevailing on

17

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

18

c.

A summary of the proceedings to date.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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. 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

d.

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

3

e.

The relief sought.

4

f.

The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a

2

5
6

trial.

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

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

7

conference.

8

DATED: February 12, 2014.

9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3