Kornberg v. United States of America et al

Filing 52

ORDER Granting 51 Motion Requesting Exception to Settlement Conference Attendance Requirement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/24/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Case 2:12-cv-01961-JAD-PAL Document 51 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6

DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
District of Nevada
JUSTIN E. PINGEL
Assistant United States Attorney
Nevada State Bar No. 10186
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 5000
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

7
Attorneys for the United States.
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12

MELVIN KORNBERG,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

16

Defendants.

)
)
) Case No: 2:12-cv-01961-JAD-PAL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18

MOTION REQUESTING EXCEPTION
TO SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT

19
20
21

I.

INTRODUCTION
A Settlement Conference in this case is scheduled for August 28, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. before

22

United States Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. ECF No. 48. The Order setting the Settlement

23

Conference provides:

24
25

In the case of non-individual parties, counsel shall arrange for an officer or representative
with binding authority to settle this matter up to the full amount of the claim or last demand
made to be present for the duration of the conference….

26

1

Case 2:12-cv-01961-JAD-PAL Document 51 Filed 08/21/15 Page 2 of 5

1

A request for an exception to the above attendance requirements must be filed and served at
least one week prior to the settlement conference. Counsel of record, individual parties, and
a fully authorized representative shall appear in person unless the court enters an order
granting a request for exception.

2
3

The United States requests that the Court authorize Assistant United States Attorney Justin E.

4
5

Pingel to participate in the Settlement Conference in person as the sole settlement representative for the

6

Government.

7

II.

8
9
10
11
12
13

ARGUMENT
The United States Supreme Court has stated that the federal Government is unlike any other

litigant:
We have long recognized that the Government is not in a position identical to that of a
private litigant, both because of the geographic breadth of government litigation and also,
most importantly, because of the nature of the issues the government litigates. It is not
open to serious dispute that the government is a party to a far greater number of cases on
a nationwide basis than even the most litigious private entity.
United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 159 (1984) (internal citation omitted).

14

Because the Government handles a very large number of cases, it would be impractical, if not

15

physically impossible, for those with settlement authority for the full claim amount to prepare for and

16

appear at all settlement conferences. United States v. U.S. Dist. Court, 694 F .3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir.

17

2012) (district court abused its discretion in ordering a Government representative with full settlement

18

authority to appear in person for a settlement conference). The Advisory Committee notes that

19

accompany the 1993 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 acknowledge the unique

20

position of the Government in that regard: “Particularly in litigation in which governmental agencies

21

… are involved, there may be no one with on-the-spot settlement authority, and the most that should

22

be expected is access to a person who would have a major role in submitting a recommendation to the

23

body or board with ultimate decision-making responsibility.” Id. at 1060.

24

The Government delegates settlement authority to select individuals in order to promote

25

centralized decision-making. Id. at 1059. Centralized decision-making promotes three important

26

Government objectives. Id. at 1060. First, it allows the Government to act consistently in important

2

Case 2:12-cv-01961-JAD-PAL Document 51 Filed 08/21/15 Page 3 of 5

1

cases. Id. Second, it allows the executive branch to pursue policy goals more effectively by placing

2

ultimate authority in the hands of a few officials. Id. Third, by giving authority to high-ranking

3

officials, centralized decision-making better promotes political accountability. Id.

4

In light of those principles, the Ninth Circuit has determined that the courts should adopt a

5

“practical approach” in deciding whether to require a Government representative with full settlement

6

authority to attend a pretrial conference. Id. at 1061. In the Ninth Circuit’s view, the courts should

7

consider less drastic steps, such as telephonic participation, before requiring in-person participation. Id.

8

Only as a “last resort” should the District Court require an official with full settlement authority to

9

participate in a pretrial conference in person. Id.

10

The ultimate authority to settle this case rests with the United States Attorney, the Civil

11

Division Chief, or higher ranking officials within the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), depending on

12

whether the client agency and DOJ officials agree with the proposed resolution. 28 C.F.R. § 0.168(a).

13

It is simply not feasible, however, for these officials to attend each and every settlement conference.

14

Moreover, Assistant United States Attorneys routinely participate in settlement conferences in this

15

district as sole settlement representatives for the Government. In fact, the Government has utilized this

16

approach with much success for many years and, as a result, hundreds of cases involving the United

17

States have settled.

18

Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that the Court authorize Assistant United

19

States Attorney Pingel to participate in the Settlement Conference in person as the sole settlement

20

representative for the Government. He will ensure that the case is thoroughly evaluated by the

21

appropriate Government officials in advance of the settlement conference so as to provide meaningful

22

participation.

23

. . .

24

. . .

25

. . .

26

. . .

3

Case 2:12-cv-01961-JAD-PAL Document 51 Filed 08/21/15 Page 4 of 5

1
2

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the United States respectfully requests that the Court permit Assistant

3

United States Attorney Pingel to participate in the Settlement Conference scheduled for August 28,

4

2015, as the sole settlement representative for the Government.

5

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of August 2015.

6
7
8
9

DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
/s/ Justin E. Pingel
JUSTIN E. PINGEL
Assistant United States Attorney

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED:

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16

DATED: August 24, 2015

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

4

Case 2:12-cv-01961-JAD-PAL Document 51 Filed 08/21/15 Page 5 of 5

1
2
3

PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Justin E. Pingel, AUSA, certify that the following individual was served with the MOTION
REQUESTING EXCEPTION TO SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE
REQUIREMENT on this date by the below identified method of service:

4

Electronic Case Filing:

5
6

Kirk T. Kennedy
815 S. Casino Center Blvd.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

7

Attorney for Plaintiff

8
9

DATED this 21st day of August 2015.

10

/s/ Justin E. Pingel
JUSTIN E. PINGEL
Assistant United States Attorney

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

5