Allen v. Superior Court of California County of Sacramento et al.

Filing 44

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/9/17. This case is SET for a Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/17/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD). (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

CRAIG ALLEN,

10
11
12

No. 2:16-cv-00214 MCE GGH
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
et al.,

13
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case
will be referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney to conduct a settlement conference at the
U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #24 on November
17, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K.

Delaney on November 17, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom #24 at the U. S. District Court, 501 I
Street, Sacramento, California 95814.
2.

Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at

the settlement conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The
individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and authority” to
change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose behind requiring the
1

1

attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the parties’ view of the case may be

2

altered during the face to face conference. An authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount

3

or sum certain can be found not to comply with the requirement of full authority to settle1.
3.

4

Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements to the following

5

email address: [e-mail]. Plaintiff may mail his confidential settlement

6

statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200,

7

Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall be marked “Confidential Settlement Conference

8

Statement.” Settlement statements shall arrive no later than November 10, 2017. Parties are also

9

directed to file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)).

10

Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on any

11

other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date and time

12

of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.
a.

13
14

The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in

length, typed or neatly printed, and include the following:

15

b.

A brief statement of the facts of the case.

16

c.

A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other

17

grounds upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of

18

prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in dispute.
d.

19

A summary of the proceedings to date.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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).
1

2

1

e.

2

An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery,

pretrial, and trial.

3

f.

The relief sought.

4

g.

The party’s position on settlement, including legal and factual positions,

5
6
7
8
9
10

present demands and offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
h.
A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement
conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2017
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

3