Rowe v. Baughman et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/8/14 ORDERING that this case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on September 9, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom No. 25. (cc KJN)(Dillon, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:10-cv-2843-MCE-EFB P
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
D. BAUGHMAN, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement
conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to
conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California
95814 in Courtroom No. 25 on September 9, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.
A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J.
Newman on September 9, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,
Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom No. 25.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
settlement shall attend in person.1
3. 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
person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not
proceed and will be reset to another date.
4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days
prior to this settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be
delivered to the court using the following email address:
email@example.com. Plaintiff shall mail his statement to Magistrate Judge
Kendall J. Newman, U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento,
California 95814 so it arrives no later than seven days prior to the settlement
conference. 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).
DATED: July 8, 2014.
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).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?