(PC) Mendoza v. Pickett ( 2020 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHN G. MENDOZA, No. 2:18-cv-0553-WBS-EFB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 13 S. PICKETT, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 17 U.S.C. §1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. 18 Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a 19 settlement conference on June 9, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted 20 by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. The court will issue the necessary 21 writ or transportation order in due course. 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 24 Newman on June 9, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by 25 remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. 26 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 27 settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1 28 1 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 1 2 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 3 The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in 4 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not 5 proceed and will be reset to another date. 6 4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days 7 prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered 8 to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff 9 shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 10 Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814 so that it 11 arrives at least seven (7) days prior to the settlement conference. The envelope shall 12 be marked “SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” The date and time of the settlement 13 conference shall be prominently indicated on the settlement statement. If a party 14 desires to share additional confidential information with the court, they may do so 15 pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). 16 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office 17 at California State Prison, Solano, via facsimile at (707) 454-3429, 18 | DATED: April 13, 2020. 19 Loatiat hie Sn Ao 20 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 |_$_ i v. United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9" Cir. 24 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 25 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 (7" Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official 6 Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1396 (9" 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. 27 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 28 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 (8" Cir. 2001).