Ramirez v. Haffner et al

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/2/15 ORDERING that this case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on August 18, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL ENRIQUE RAMIREZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2079 GEB KJN P

v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

GARY HAFFNER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

17
18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement

19

conference. Therefore, this case is set for a settlement conference before the undersigned on

20

August 18, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California

21

95814 in Courtroom #25.
The parties are required to file a signed Waiver of Disqualification (included below), or

22
23

notice of non-waiver of disqualification, no later than July 15, 2015. If the parties file a notice of

24

non-waiver of disqualification, a randomly selected magistrate judge will be assigned to conduct

25

the settlement conference on a date and time to be determined by the court.

26

////

27

////

28

1

1

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

2

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J.

3

Newman on August 18, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,

4

California 95814 in Courtroom #25.
2. The parties are required to file a signed Waiver of Disqualification, no later than July

5
6

15, 2015. If parties file a notice of non-waiver of disqualification, a randomly selected magistrate

7

judge will be assigned to conduct the settlement conference on a date and time to be determined

8

by the court.
3. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding

9
10

settlement shall attend in person.1

11

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

12

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

13

may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not proceed and will be

14

reset to another date.
5. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days

15
16

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

17

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

18

non-confidential settlement statement to arrive not less than seven days prior to the settlement

19
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 Dist. Court for the N. Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051,
1053, 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2012)(“[T]he 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. Pitman 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

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite

2

4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall be marked “Settlement Statement.” If a party

3

desires to share additional confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the

4

provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

5

Dated: July 2, 2015

6
7
8

/rami2079.med

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

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLARENCE ROBERSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

No. 2:14-cv-2302 WBS KJN P

v.

WAIVER OF DISQUALIFICATION

SGT. SINGH, et al.,
Defendants.
Under Local Rule 270(b) of the Eastern District of California, the parties to the herein
action affirmatively request that Magistrate Judge Newman participate in the settlement
conference scheduled for June 30, 2015. To the extent the parties consent to trial of the case
before the assigned magistrate judge, they waive any claim of disqualification to the assigned
magistrate judge trying the case thereafter.

21
22
23

By:
Plaintiff
Dated:_________________

24
25

By:
Attorney for defendants

26
27
28

Dated:_________________
4