Landes v. Skil Power Tools, et al

Filing 61

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/2/14 ORDERING that a Settlement Conference is SET for 6/10/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WILLIAM LANDES, 11 12 13 14 No. 2:12-cv-1252 MCE KJN Plaintiff, v. SKIL POWER TOOLS, etc., 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. ECF No. 60. Pursuant to the parties’ request, a 19 Settlement Conference will be set for June 10, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 26 (AC) before 20 Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. 21 22 In accordance with the above: 23 1. A Settlement Conference has been SET for June 10, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24 25 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. 2. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the 26 Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The 27 individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and 28 1 1 authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose 2 behind requiring the attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the 3 parties’ view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An 4 authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be found not to 5 comply with the requirement of full authority to settle.1 6 3. The parties are directed to submit their confidential settlement conference statements 7 to the Court using the following email address: If a 8 party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do 9 so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). Statements are due at least 7 days prior to the Settlement Conference. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 2, 2014 13 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

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?