Hohenberg v. Ferrero USA, Inc

Filing 96

MINUTE ORDER setting Case Management Conference and Mandatory Settlement Conference for 11/28/2011 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.(jpp)(jrl). Modified on 11/21/2011 to add to docket text Mandatory Settlement Conference (ag).

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case Name:

In re Ferrero litigation

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo

Ct. Deputy Lori Hernandez

Case Number:

11-cv-205-H (CAB)

Rptr. Tape:

At the request of counsel, a Case Management Conference and Mandatory Settlement
Conference will take place simultaneously on November 28, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
Counsel shall submit confidential settlement statements directly to chambers no later than
November 22, 2011. Each party’s settlement statement shall set forth the party’s statement of the
case, identify controlling legal issues, concisely set out issues of liability and damages, and shall set
forth the party’s settlement position, including the last offer or demand made by that party, and a
separate statement of the offer or demand the party is prepared to make at the settlement conference.
Settlement conference briefs shall not be filed with the Clerk of the Court, nor shall they be
served on opposing counsel.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for insured
defendants with full and unlimited authority1 to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement, as well
as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present and legally and factually
prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the mandatory settlement conference. Retained outside
corporate counsel shall not appear on behalf of a corporation as the party who has the authority to
negotiate and enter into a settlement. Failure to attend the conference or obtain proper excuse will
be considered grounds for sanctions.

Date:

November 18, 2011
Initials: BFG

1

“Full 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. 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).