Calhoun v. Gomez et al

Filing 121

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 3/17/2017 SETTING this case for a Settlement Conference on 3/30/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison. The dispositve motion deadline is VACATED and RESET to 28 days following the conclusion of the settlement conference. (cc: ADR, CMK)(Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMONT L. CALHOUN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:12-cv-2856 GEB DB P v. M. GOMEZ, et al., 15 ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a 19 settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Craig M. 20 Kellison to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, 21 California 95814 in Courtroom #4 on March 30, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with 22 23 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 Craig M. 26 Kellison on March 30, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, 27 California 95814 in Courtroom #4. 28 //// 1 1 2 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1 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 this order to appear in 5 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not proceed and 6 will be reset to another date. 7 4. Judge Kellison or another representative from the court will be contacting the 8 parties either by telephone or in person, approximately two weeks prior to the settlement 9 conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference. 10 The dispositive motion deadline is vacated and reset to 28 days following the conclusion 11 of the settlement conference. 12 Dated: March 17, 2017 13 14 15 16 17 TIM-DLB:10 DB / ORDERS / ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS / 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 (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. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (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. Id. 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

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?