Moore v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Dept et al

Filing 62

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/02/15 ordering ( Settlement Conference set for 6/3/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.) The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settleme nt statements 7 days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered to the court using the following email address: [e-mail]. Plaintiff may mail his non-confidential settlement statement to arrive not less than 7 days prior to the settlement conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA, 95814. (cc: KJN). (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ADRIAN EUGENE MOORE,

12
13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1386 MCE DAD P

Plaintiff,
v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

15
Defendants.
16
17
18

Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit

20

from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J.

21

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

22

District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on June 3, 2015 at

23

9:00 a.m.

24

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

25

1. A settlement conference has been set for June 3, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom #25

26

before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,

27

Sacramento, California 95814.

28

1

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

1

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

2

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

3
4

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

6

proceed and will be reset to another date.

7

4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days

8

prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered

9

to the court using the following email address: [e-mail]. Plaintiff

10

may mail his non-confidential settlement statement to arrive not less than seven days

11

prior to the settlement conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman,

12

USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall

13

be marked “Settlement Statement.” If a party desires to share additional confidential

14

/////

15

/////

16

/////

17
18
19
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., No. CV 02-1886 PHX DGC, 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).
2
1

1

information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule

2

270(d) and (e).

3

Dated: April 2, 2015

4
5
6
/moor1386.med

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3