Moulton v. United States
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/1/14 ORDERING pursuant to the parties' request, a Settlement Conference is set for 5/16/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. Settlement Conference Statements are due at least 7 days prior to the Settlement Conference. (Becknal, R)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
On April 23, 2014, a Minute Order was issued directing the parties to inform the court’s
ADR Division if they believe participation in a Settlement Conference would be beneficial.
Pursuant to the parties’ request, a Settlement Conference will be set for May 16, 2014 at 9:30 AM
in Courtroom 26 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. A Settlement Conference has been SET for May 16, 2014 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom
26 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney.
2. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the
Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The
individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and
authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. 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. 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.1
3. The parties are directed to submit their confidential settlement conference statements
to the Court using the following email address: email@example.com. If a
party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do
so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). Statements are due at least
7 days prior to the Settlement Conference.
Dated: May 1, 2014
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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).
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?