Coleman v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 120

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/20/17 ordering ( Settlement Conference set for 3/2/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.) Parties shall file a signed waiver of disqualification no later than 2/16/17. The dispositive motion deadline currently set for 3/08/17 is vacated and reset for 45 days following the completion of the settlement conference. (Plummer, M) Modified on 1/20/2017 (Plummer, M).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT COLEMAN,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1021 JAM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference.

19

Therefore, this case will be set for a settlement conference before the undersigned to occur at the

20

U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on March 2,

21

2017, at 1:30 p.m.

22
23

Parties shall file a signed “Waiver of Disqualification” (attached below), no later than
February 16, 2017.

24

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

25

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before the undersigned on March 2, 2017,

26

at 1:30 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in

27

Courtroom #25.

28

1

2. Parties shall file a signed “Waiver of Disqualification” no later than February 16,

1

2017.

2

3. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding

3

settlement shall attend in person.1

4

4. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages.

5
6

The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in

7

person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not

8

proceed and will be reset to another date.

9

5. Judge Newman or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties

10

either by telephone or in person, approximately two weeks prior to the settlement

11

conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.
6. The dispositive motion deadline, currently set for March 8, 2017, is vacated and reset

12

for forty-five (45) days following the completion of the settlement conference.

13
14

Dated: January 20, 2017

15
16
/cole1021.med

17
18
19
20
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), 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

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT COLEMAN,

11
12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-1021 JAM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

WAIVER OF DISQUALIFICATION

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Under Local Rule 270(b) of the Eastern District of California, the parties to the herein

18

action affirmatively request that Magistrate Judge Newman participate in the settlement

19

conference scheduled for March 2, 2017. To the extent the parties consent to trial of the case

20

before the assigned magistrate judge, they waive any claim of disqualification to the assigned

21

magistrate judge trying the case thereafter.

22

By:
Plaintiff

23
24

Dated:_________________

25
26
27
28

By:
Attorney for defendants
Dated:_________________
3