Garcia v. Folks et al

Filing 157

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/18/2020 SETTING this case for a Settlement Conference on 8/5/2020 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The parties shall exchange non-confidential settlement statements 7 days prior to the settlement conference in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on the PBSP Litigation Coordinator via facsimile. (cc: KJN, ADR) (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

RAUL GARCIA,

13

No. 2:14-cv-2378 JAM DB P
Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

F. FOLKS, et al.,

16

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
Defendants.

17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18
19

action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from another

20

settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J.

21

Newman to conduct a settlement conference on August 5, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement

22

conference will be conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. In due

23

course, the court will issue the necessary order for plaintiff’s appearance at the conference.

24

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

25

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

26

Newman on August 5, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted

27

by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time.

28

////
1

1
2

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

3
4

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

5

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

6

in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will

7

not proceed and will be reset to another date.

8

4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days

9

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

10

to the court using the following email address: [e-mail].

11

Plaintiff shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge

12

Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814

13

so that it arrives at least seven (7) days prior to the settlement conference. The

14

envelope shall be marked “SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” The date and time of the

15

settlement conference shall be prominently indicated on the settlement statement. If a

16

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

17

so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

18

////

19

////

20

////

21

////

22
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 (9 th 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. 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

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1
2
3
4

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office
at Pelican Bay State Prison, via facsimile at [phone].
Dated: May 18, 2020

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

DLB:9
DB/prisoner-civil rights/garc2378.sett conf kjn

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3