Norman v. Riaz et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/17/17 ordering ( Settlement Conference set for 3/9/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison.) The dispositive motion deadline in this case, currently 3/17/17 is vacated pending further order of this court following the settlement conference. (cc: CMK) (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DANIEL J. NORMAN,
No. 2:15-cv-1346 GEB AC P
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case would benefit from a settlement
conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison to
conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California
95814, in Courtroom #4, on March 9, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison
on March 9, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,
California 95814, in Courtroom #4.
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. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages.
The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in
person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not
proceed and will be reset to another date.
4. Judge Kellison or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties
either by telephone or in person, approximately two weeks prior to the settlement
conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.
5. The dispositive motion deadline in this case, currently March 17, 2017, is vacated
pending further order of this court following the settlement conference.
DATED: January 17, 2017
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. 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).
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?