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)

Download PDF
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?