Anderson v. California Medical Facility - Solano

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/5/2018 SETTING this case for a Settlement Conference on 3/15/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement statement 7 days prior to the settlement conference. The Clerk shall serve this order on Deputy AG, Justin Walker. (cc: KJN) (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JULIUS ANDERSON, 13 14 15 16 No. 2:16-cv-0018 TLN CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER SETTING CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, SOLANO, et al., SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a 20 settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 21 Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, 22 California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on March 15, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. 23 A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with 24 this order. 25 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 27 Newman on March 15, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 28 Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25. 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 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 4. Judge Newman or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties 9 either by telephone or in person, approximately two weeks prior to the settlement conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference. 10 11 5. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement statement seven (7) days prior to the 12 settlement conference. Defendants shall submit via email to the following address: 13 Plaintiff shall submit via mail to arrive seven (7) days 14 before the conference to: Attn: Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I 15 Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814. 16 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on Deputy Attorney General 17 18 Justin Walker. Dated: January 5, 2018 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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

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?