Aguirre v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/08/14 ordering ( Settlement Conference set for 2/27/2014 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1 before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison.)(cc: CMK)(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARLOS R. AGUIRRE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-2165 TLN KJN P

v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a former prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference.

19

Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison to conduct a

20

settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in

21

Courtroom #1 on February 27, 2014, at 1:00 p.m.

22

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

23

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison

24

on February 27, 2014, at 1:00 p.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,

25

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #1.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding

26

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

27
28

1

While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district court has the authority to

1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4
5

proceed and will be reset to another date.
4. Judge Kellison or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties

6

either by telephone or in person, approximately one week prior to the settlement

7

conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.

8
9

Dated: January 8, 2014

10
11

agui2165.med

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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