Quair v. Gertz

Filing 84

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/12/15 ordering ( Settlement Conference set for 6/2/2015 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.) The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential set tlement statements 7 days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered to the court using the following email address: [e-mail]. Plaintiff shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement to arrive not less than 7 days prior to the settlement conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA, 94814. (cc: KJN) (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

SAMMY R. QUAIR, SR.,

11
12
13

No. 2:11-cv-2293 JAM CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

GERTZ, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26, 2015, parties were ordered to inform the

18

Court’s ADR Division if they believed a settlement conference would be beneficial. (ECF No.

19

80.) After a review of parties’ submissions, the Court has determined that this case will benefit

20

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

21

Newman for the Court’s Settlement Week program to conduct a settlement conference at the U.S.

22

District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on June 2, 2015 at

23

1:00 p.m.

24
25

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with
this order.

26

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

27

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

28

1

1

Newman on June 2, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,

2

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding

3

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

4

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

5
6

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

7

person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not

8

proceed and will be reset to another date.

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement to arrive not less than seven days

13

prior to the settlement conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman,

14

USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall

15

be marked “Settlement Statement.” If a party desires to share additional confidential

16

information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local rule

17

270(d) and (e).

18

Dated: March 12, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 (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).

2