Deck v. Miramar Federal Credit Union et al

Filing 24

ORDER: On May 23, 2011, the Court held a Mandatory Settlement Conference. Mandatory Settlement Conference set for 10/14/2011 10:00 AM in chambers before Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 5/24/2011.(knh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NICHOLAS DECK, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

12
v.
13
14

Civil No.

10-cv-2340-BEN (POR)

ORDER SCHEDULING MANDATORY
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

MIRAMAR FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
FLIGHTDECK FINANCIAL SERVICES, and
DOES 1-10, inclusive,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On May 23, 2011, the Court held a Mandatory Settlement Conference. Appearing were:

18

Plaintiff Nicholas Deck; Mark Golovach, Esq., counsel for Plaintiff; Coleen Deziel, Esq., counsel

19

for Defendants; Max Paul, Defendants’ representative; and Darilyn David, Defendants’ adjuster.

20

The case did not settle. Based thereon and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a

21

Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be held on October 14, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in the chambers

22

of the Honorable Louisa S Porter.

23

Counsel shall exchange supplemental settlement statements and lodge them directly with the

24

chambers of Judge Porter on or before October 7, 2011. In addition, counsel may lodge

25

confidential settlement statements, if any, directly with Judge Porter’s chambers. The settlement

26

statements should include a neutral factual statement of the case, identify controlling legal issues,

27

and concisely set out issues of liability and damages, including any settlement demands and offers to

28

date and addressing special and general damages where applicable. The settlement statements shall
-1-

10-cv-2340-BEN (POR)

1

not be filed with the Clerk of the Court. The settlement statements may be lodged with chambers

2

via e-mail to: [e-mail].

3

All parties and claims adjusters for insured defendants and representatives with complete

4

authority1 to enter into a binding settlement, as well as the principal attorney responsible for the

5

litigation, shall be present and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the

6

settlement conference. Corporate counsel and/or retained outside corporate counsel shall not appear

7

on behalf of a corporation as the party who has the authority to negotiate and enter into a settlement.

8

The parties must be legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the mandatory

9

settlement conference. All conference discussions will be informal, off the record, privileged and

10

confidential.

11

Mandatory settlement conferences shall not be rescheduled without a showing of good cause

12

and adequate notice to the Court. If counsel wish to reschedule this conference, they shall contact

13

the Court at least 10 days prior to the conference. Absent exceptional circumstances, the Court will

14

not reschedule this conference with less than 10 days notice. Only in extreme circumstances will the

15

Court reschedule a mandatory settlement conference with less than 24 hours notice.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 24, 2011

18
19
20

LOUISA S PORTER
United States Magistrate Judge
cc:

The Honorable Roger T. Benitez
All parties

21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

“Complete authority” to settle means that the individuals at the settlement 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 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered
discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Intl., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481,
485-486 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement authority to attend the
conference includes that the person's view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. Id. at 486.
A limited or a sum certain of authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan's Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001).

-2-

10-cv-2340-BEN (POR)