Smith v. Rahman

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/28/2015 SETTING a Settlement Conference for 6/1/2015 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. (cc: ADR, CKD) (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARRELL SMITH,

12
13
14

No. 2:13-cv-0738 MCE KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

DR. ABDUR-RAHMAN,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

18

to 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 Carolyn K. Delaney for the

20

Court’s Settlement Week program to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court,

21

501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #24 on June 1, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

22
23

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with
this order.

24

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1. A settlement conference has been set for June 1, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom #24

26

before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,

27

California 95814.

28

1

2. The parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at

1
2

the Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The

3

individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and authority” to

4

change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose behind requiring the

5

attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the parties’ view of the case may be

6

altered during the face to face conference. An authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount

7

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 confidential settlement statements no later than May

8
9

25, 2015 to [e-mail]. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement

10

statement to Sujean Park, ADR Division, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814

11

so it arrives no later than May 25, 2015. If a party desires to share additional confidential

12

information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and

13

(e). Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement

14

Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)).
4. Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the court nor served on

15
16

any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date and

17

time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.
The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed

18
19

or neatly printed, and include the following:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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).
1

2

1

a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.

2

b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon

3

which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of

4

prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in

5

dispute.

6

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

7

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and
trial.

8

e. The relief sought.

9

f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a

10

history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

11

g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement

12

conference.

13
14

Dated: April 28, 2015

15
16
17
/smit0738.med

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3