West v. Dizon

Filing 107

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/8/14 ORDERING that Settlement Conference is set for 3/12/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman; Magistrate Judge Newman or another representative from the court contact the parties, either by telephone or in person, approximately one week prior to the settlement conference to ascertain each partys expectations of the settlement conference. (cc KJN)(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MACK WEST, Jr., 13 No. 2:12-cv-1293 MCE DAD P Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 NOEL DIZON, 16 ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983. On November 10, 2014, parties filed a stipulation requesting the court order this case to 20 mediation. (Dkt. No. 66.) Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 21 Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, 22 California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on March 12, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. 23 24 A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with this order. 25 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 27 Newman on March 12, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 28 Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25. A representative with full and 1 1 2 unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on the defendants’ 3 behalf shall attend in person.1 4 2. Those in attendance shall be prepared to discuss the claims still viable in this case, the 5 defenses to those claims and damages. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized 6 person subject to this order to appear in person may result in the imposition of 7 sanctions. In such event, the conference will not proceed and will be reset to another 8 date. 9 3. Magistrate Judge Newman or another representative from the court contact the parties, 10 either by telephone or in person, approximately one week prior to the settlement 11 conference to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference. 12 Dated: December 8, 2014 13 14 15 16 hm west1293.med 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 (9 th Cir. 2012) (“the district court has broad authority to compel participation in mandatory settlement conference[s]”). “Full authority to settle” means that the individuals attending the mediation conference must be authorized to explore settlement options fully 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 of requiring the attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the parties’ view of the case may change 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 may 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?