(PC) Faultry v. Saechao et al
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/18/2021 ORDERING that a Settlement Conference is set for 3/19/2021 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on the defendants' behalf shall attend personally. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days prior to the settlement conference. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office at CSP, Sacramento, via facsimile. (cc: CSP-Sac by Fax) (Reader, L)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHARLES B. FAULTRY,
No. 2:18-cv-1850 KJM AC P
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
J. SAECHAO, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with this civil rights action filed
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 Kendall J.
Newman to conduct a settlement conference on March 19, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement
conference will be conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. The
court will issue the necessary transportation order in due course.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J.
Newman on March 19, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be
conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend personally.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
personally appear may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the
conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.
4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days
prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered
to the court using the following email address: firstname.lastname@example.org. If a
party desires to share additional confidential information with the court, they may do
so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office
at California State Prison, Sacramento, via facsimile at (916) 294-3072.
DATED: February 18, 2021.
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?