(PC) Botello v. Hanlon ( 2020 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VICTOR HUGO BOTELLO, No. 2:18-cv-0162-TLN-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 14 S. HANLON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 18, 2020, parties were ordered to submit confidential statements 19 assessing whether this case would benefit from a settlement proceeding. ECF No. 42. After 20 review of the statements, the court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement 21 conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to 22 conduct a settlement conference on November 17, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference 23 will be conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. The court will 24 issue the necessary writ in due course. 25 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 27 Newman on November 17, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be 28 conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. WwOAOW 42.140 UV VULYVO TLIN LST MVVULLICEI “to VOrmuicy rPaywt evre 1 2 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 3 settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.' 4 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 5 The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in 6 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not 7 proceed and will be reset to another date. 8 4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days 9 prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered 10 to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The 11 date and time of the settlement conference shall be prominently indicated on the 12 settlement statement. If a party desires to share additional confidential information 13 with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). 14 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office 15 at California State Prison, Corcoran, via facsimile at (559) 992-7372. 16 | DATED: August 3, 2020. > 18 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 |—§ — ' While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district court has the authority to 23 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 (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).