Isip v. Solano County

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 12/2/13: Settlement Conference set for 1/17/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
ROLANDO ISIP,

NO. CIV. 2:12-cv-2780 WBS DAD

11
Plaintiff,
12
v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

13
SOLANO COUNTY,
14
Defendant.
15
16
17
18
19
20

Parties in this case contacted the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Coordinator requesting a settlement conference be set in this case before a Magistrate Judge.
Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a
settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in
Courtroom #25 on January 17, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.

21
22
23
24
25
26

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J.
Newman on January 17, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,
Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding

27
28
1

1

set
ttlement shal attend in person.1
ll
p

2

3. Those in attend
dance must be prepared t discuss th claims, de
b
to
he
efenses and d
damages.

3

The failure of any counsel, party or aut
a
,
thorized per
rson subject t this order to appear in
to
r
n

4

per
rson may res in the im
sult
mposition of sanctions. I addition, t conferen will not
In
the
nce

5

pro
oceed and wi be reset to another da
ill
o
ate.

6

4. The parties are directed to exchange no
e
on-confident settlement statement seven days
tial
ts

7

prior to this set
ttlement con
nference. Th
hese statemen shall sim
nts
multaneously be
y

8

del
livered to the court using the followi email ad
e
g
ing
ddress:

9

kjn
norders@cae
ed.uscourts.g
gov. If a par desires to share addit
rty
o
tional confid
dential

10

inf
formation wi the court, they may d so pursuan to the provisions of Local Rule
ith
,
do
nt

11
12

270 and (e).
0(d)
.
Da
ated: Decem
mber 2, 2013
3

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

1

While the exerc of its autho
W
cise
ority is subject to abuse of dis
scretion review “the district court has the a
w,
authority to
ord parties, including the fede governmen to participat in mandator settlement co
der
eral
nt,
te
ry
onferences… .” United States
v. United States District Court for the Norther Mariana Isla
D
f
rn
ands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9th Cir.
d
2012)(“the distric court has bro authority to compel parti
ct
oad
icipation in ma
andatory settlem conferenc
ment
ce[s].”). The
ter “full author to settle” means that the in
rm
rity
m
ndividuals atte
ending the med
diation conference must be au
uthorized to
ful explore sett
lly
tlement options and to agree at that time to a settlement terms accepta to the parti
s
a
any
t
able
ies. G.
He
eileman Brewin Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Co
ng
orp., 871 F.2d 6
648, 653 (7th C 1989), cited with approva in Official
Cir.
d
al
Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 139 (9th Cir. 199
I
96
93). The indiv
vidual with full authority to se
ettle must also
hav “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the sett
ve
d
c
tlement positio of the party, if appropriate Pittman v.
on
,
e.
Br
rinker Int’l., Inc 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D Ariz. 2003), amended on r
c.,
D.
,
recon. in part, P
Pitman v. Brin
nker Int’l., Inc.,
,
2003 WL 233534 (D. Ariz. 2003). The pur
478
2
rpose behind re
equiring the att
tendance of a p
person with ful settlement
ll
aut
thority is that the parties’ view of the case may be altered during the fac to face confe
t
m
ce
erence. Pitman 216 F.R.D.
n,
at 486. An autho
orization to sett for a limited dollar amoun or sum certa can be foun not to compl with the
tle
d
nt
ain
nd
ly
req
quirement of fu authority to settle. Nick v. Morgan’s Fo
ull
v
oods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 596- (8th Cir. 20
-97
001).

2