LaTourelle v. Barber et al

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/13/2014 ORDERING 75 Settlement Conference set for 6/11/2014 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman; Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms; The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements 7 days prior to the settlement conference.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RUTH LaTOURELLE,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:10-CV-2667-MCE-CMK

Plaintiff,
vs.
TERRY BARBER, et al.,

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

Defendants.

15
16

On April 21, 2014, a Minute Order was issued directing the parties to inform the court’s

17

ADR Division if they believe participation in a Settlement Conference during the court’s

18

Settlement Week event would be beneficial. Pursuant to the parties’ request, a Settlement

19

Conference will be set for June 11, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate

20

Judge Kendall J. Newman.

21
22

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

23

1. A Settlement Conference has been SET before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman

24

for June 11, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,

25

California 95814 in Courtroom 25 (KJN).

26
27
28

2. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the
Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

comply with the requirement of full authority to settle.1

7

3. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days

8

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

9

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

10

party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do

11

so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: May 13, 2014

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
 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