Craver v. Hasty et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/16/2013 SETTING this case for a Settlement Conference on 3/13/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (CMK) before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison; a representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on the defendants' behalf shall attend in person. (Yin, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 2:11-cv-1344 TLN KJN P
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
J. HASTY, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 9, 2013, the parties filed a joint stipulation
requesting to participate in a settlement conference. (ECF No. 83.) Therefore, this case will be
referred to Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S.
District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #9 on March 13, 2014, at
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 Craig M. Kellison
on March 13, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,
California 95814 in Courtroom #9.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
settlement on the defendants’ behalf 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. Judge Kellison or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties
either by telephone or in person, approximately one week prior to the settlement
conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.
Dated: December 16, 2013
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 (9 th 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?