(PC) Stanford v. Anaya et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 9/8/2021 SETTING this case for a Settlement Conference on 11/30/2021 at 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The parties shall exchange non-confidential settlement statements 7 days prior to the settlement conference in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on the CSP-Corcoran Litigation Office via facsimile or email. (cc: KJN, ADR, I.T.)(Yin, K)
Case 2:19-cv-00497-KJM-DMC Document 33 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TERRELL CORDARRYL STANFORD,
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
Y. ANAYA, et al.,
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 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 November 30, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. The settlement conference will be
conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. 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 November 30, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. The settlement conference will be
conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding
Case 2:19-cv-00497-KJM-DMC Document 33 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2
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. 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: email@example.com. Plaintiff
shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Kendall J.
Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814 so that it
arrives at least seven (7) days prior to the settlement conference. The envelope shall
be marked “SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” The date and time of the settlement
conference shall be prominently indicated on the settlement statement. 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, Corcoran via facsimile at (559) 992-7372 or via email.
Dated: September 8, 2021
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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).
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?