Griffin v. Kelso et al

Filing 94

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/03/17 ordering ( Settlement Conference set for 12/12/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.) The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settle ment statements seven days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered to thecourt using the following email address: [e-mail]. If a party desires to share additional confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). (cc: KJN) (Plummer, M) Modified on 8/4/2017 (Plummer, M).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH A. GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

No. 2:10-cv-2525 MCE AC P

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

J. CLARK KELSO, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a civil rights action

17
18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case would benefit from a

19

settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J.

20

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

21

California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on December 12, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.

22

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

23

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J.

24

Newman on December 12, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,

25

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.

26

////

27

////

28

////
1

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

1
2

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

reset to another date.
4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days

7
8

prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered to the

9

court using the following email address: [e-mail]. If a party desires to share

10

additional confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of

11

Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

12

DATED: August 3, 2017

13
14
15
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 Dist. Court for the N. 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. 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