Thompson v. Jones et al

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/26/14 ( Settlement Conference set for 2/12/2015 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 9 before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison.)(cc: CMK) (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

DAVID ALLEN THOMPSON, SR.,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

No. 2:13-cv-1951 MCE CKD P

v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

SCOTT R. JONES, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

18
19

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

20

Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison

22

on February 12, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,

23

California, 95814 in Courtroom #9.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding

24

settlement on defendant’s behalf shall attend in person.1

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)
(district court has broad authority to compel participation in mandatory settlement conference). 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

1

1
2

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

3

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

4

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

5

proceed and will be reset to another date.

6

4. Judge Kellison or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties

7

either by telephone or in person, approximately one week prior to the settlement

8

conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.

9

Dated: November 26, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15

1/sp
Thom1951.set

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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).

2