(PC) Doe v. Alderson et al

Filing 56

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/3/2021 ORDERING this case is set for a Settlement Conference on 7/14/2021 at 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote means , to be determined at a later date and time. The parties shall exchange non-confidential settlement statements 7 days prior to the settlement conference, and simultaneously be delivered to the court in accordance to this order. (cc: KJN, ADR) (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THERON KENNETH HOLSTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:20-cv-01076-KJM-CKD P

v.

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

G. VIERA ROSA,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

17
18

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will

19

benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge

20

Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference on July 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. The

21

settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and

22

time.

23

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J.

25

Newman on July 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. The settlement conference will be conducted

26

by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time.

27

////

28

////
1

1
2
3

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

4
5

3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages.

6

The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in

7

person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not

8

proceed and will be reset to another date.

9

4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days

10

prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered

11

to the court using the following email address: [e-mail]. If

12

plaintiff does not have access to the internet, plaintiff shall mail his non-confidential

13

settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I

14

Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814 so that it arrives at least seven (7) days

15

prior to the settlement conference. The envelope shall be marked “SETTLEMENT

16

STATEMENT.” The date and time of the settlement conference shall be prominently

17

indicated on the settlement statement. If a party desires to share additional

18

confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of

19

Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

20

Dated: June 3, 2021
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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