Thomas v. Swarthout et al
Filing
97
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 8/30/2016 ORDERING a Settlement Conference SET for 2/21/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Jackson, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LLOYD THOMAS,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:12-cv-2412-MCE-EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
G. SWARTHOUT, et al.,
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in an action brought under
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 referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J.
20
Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,
21
Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on February 21, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
22
A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue
23
concurrently with this order.
24
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
25
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall
26
J. Newman on February 21, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I
27
Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.
28
1
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a
1
binding settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1
2
3
3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and
4
damages. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to
5
this order to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In
6
addition, the conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.
7
4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements
8
seven days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall
9
simultaneously be delivered to the court using the following email address:
10
kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. If a party desires to share additional
11
confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the
12
provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated: August 30, 2016
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
th
1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9 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
th
Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7 Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d
th
1385, 1396 (9 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
th
(8 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?