Gentle v. Montago
Filing
39
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 07/16/15 ordering ( Settlement Conference set for 8/31/2015 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney.) Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement s tatements no later than 08/21/15 to ckdorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff may mail his confidential settlement statement to U.S. District Court, Attn: ADR Division, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA, 95814 so it arrives no later than 08/21/15. (See order for further details)(cc: CKD). (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ANTOINE MARQUISE GENTLE,
11
12
13
No. 2:14-CV-1173-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
F. MONTAGO, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
Plaintiff, a former prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
17
U.S.C. § 1983. The Court previously set this case for a settlement conference before Magistrate
18
Judge Carolyn K. Delaney to occur on June 3, 2015 (Doc. #28). Thereafter, prior to the
19
settlement conference, defendants filed a notice of conditional settlement (Doc. #29). On June
20
22, 2015, parties filed a stipulation to return the case to the active civil calendar, indicating that
21
the settlement fell through (Doc. #32). The Court continues to believe that this case will benefit
22
from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred back to Magistrate Judge
23
Carolyn K. Delaney to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,
24
Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #24 on August 31, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
1
1
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. A settlement conference has been set for August 31, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom
3
#24 before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney at the U. S. District Court, 501 I
4
Street, Sacramento, California 95814.
2. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the
5
6
settlement conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The
7
individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and
8
authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose
9
behind requiring the attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the
10
parties’ view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An
11
authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be found not to
12
comply with the requirement of full authority to settle1.
3. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than August
13
14
21, 2015 to ckdorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff may mail his confidential
15
settlement statement to U. S. District Court, Attn: ADR Division, 501 I Street, Suite 4-
16
200, Sacramento, California 95814 so it arrives no later than August 21, 2015. If a
17
party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do
18
so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). Parties are also directed to
19
file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)).
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
2
Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on
3
any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with
4
the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.
5
6
The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length,
7
typed or neatly printed, and include the following:
8
9
a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.
10
b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon
11
which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of
12
prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in
13
dispute.
14
c. A summary of the proceedings to date.
15
d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and
16
trial.
17
e. The relief sought.
18
f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a
19
20
21
history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement
conference.
22
23
Dated: July 16, 2015
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?