Woodson v. Sahota et al
Filing
63
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 03/28/17 ordering ( Settlement Conference set for 6/14/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.) Parties are required to file a signed Waiver of Disqualifi cation no later than May 31, 2017. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered to the court using the following email ad dress: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement to arrive not less than seven days prior to the settlement conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall be marked Settlement Statement. 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). (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MAURICE WOODSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-1589 MCE KJN P
v.
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
A. NANGALAMA,
15
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to
17
18
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement
19
conference. Therefore, this case will be set for a settlement conference before the undersigned to
20
occur at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on
21
June 14, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
Parties will be required to file a signed “Waiver of Disqualification” (attached below), no
22
23
later than May 31, 2017.
A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with
24
25
this order.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
26
27
28
////
1
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before the undersigned to occur on June
1
2
14, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California
3
95814 in Courtroom #25.
2. Parties are required to file a signed “Waiver of Disqualification” no later than May 31,
4
2017.
5
3. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
6
settlement shall attend in person1.
7
4. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages.
8
The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in
9
10
person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not
11
proceed and will be reset to another date.
12
5. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days
13
prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered
14
to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff
15
shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement to arrive not less than seven days
16
prior to the settlement conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman,
17
USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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
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. 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
1
1
be marked “Settlement Statement.” If a party desires to share additional confidential
2
information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule
3
270(d) and (e).
4
Dated: March 28, 2017
5
6
7
/wood1589.med
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MAURICE WOODSON,
11
12
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-1589 MCE KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
WAIVER OF DISQUALIFICATION
A. NANGALAMA,
Defendant.
15
16
Under Local Rule 270(b) of the Eastern District of California, the parties to the
17
herein action affirmatively request that Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman participate in the
18
settlement conference scheduled for June 14, 2017. To the extent the parties consent to trial of
19
the case before the assigned Magistrate Judge, they waive any claim of disqualification to the
20
assigned Magistrate Judge trying the case thereafter.
21
By:
Plaintiff
22
23
Dated:_________________
24
25
26
By:
Attorney for Defendants
Dated:_________________
27
28
4
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?