Dicey v. Cobb et al

Filing 68

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/31/17: Settlement Conference set for 6/19/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. Plaintiff is to appear at the settlement conference by video conference from his present place of confinement. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days prior to the settlement conference. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

BERLAN LYNELL DICEY,

11

No. 2:14-cv-2661 TLN CKD P

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

T. COBB, et al.,

14

ORDER SETTING
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

17

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a

18

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

19

Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,

20

California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on June 19, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.

21
22

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with
this order.

23

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

24

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

25

Newman on June 19, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,

26

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.

27
28

2. Plaintiff is to appear at the settlement conference by video conference from his present
1

place of confinement.

1

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

2

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

3

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

4
5

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

6

person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not

7

proceed and will be reset to another date.

8

5. 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]. Plaintiff

11

shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement to arrive not less than seven days

12

prior to the settlement conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman,

13

USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall

14

be marked “Settlement Statement”. If a party desires to share additional confidential

15

information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule

16

270(d) and (e).

17

Dated: March 31, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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 (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).

2