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)

Download PDF
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

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?