Calhoun v. Gomez et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMONT L. CALHOUN,
No. 2:12-cv-2856 GEB DB P
M. GOMEZ, et al.,
ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a
settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Craig M.
Kellison to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,
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
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M.
Kellison on March 30, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,
California 95814 in Courtroom #4.
A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a
binding settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1
Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses, and
damages. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in
person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not proceed and
will be reset to another date.
Judge Kellison or another representative from the court will be contacting the
parties either by telephone or in person, approximately two weeks prior to the settlement
conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.
The dispositive motion deadline is vacated and reset to 28 days following the conclusion
of the settlement conference.
Dated: March 17, 2017
DB / ORDERS / ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS / calh.2856.med
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).
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?