Goodson v. County of Plumas ( 2021 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 TIFFANY WAGNER, No. 2:18-cv-03105-KJM-DB 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 15 COUNTY OF PLUMAS, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. 19 Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney for the court’s 20 Settlement Week program to conduct a settlement conference on May 24, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. The 21 settlement conference will be conducted via the Zoom videoconferencing application. 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. 24 Delaney on May 24, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. The settlement conference will be conducted 25 via the Zoom videoconferencing application. 26 2. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the 27 Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The 28 individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and 2 authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose 3 behind requiring the attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the 4 parties’ view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An 5 authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be found not to 6 comply with the requirement of full authority to settle1. 7 3. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than May 17, 8 2021 to ckdorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of 9 Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)). 10 DATED: March 16, 2021 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 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 24 conferences… .” Unittehd States v. United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9 Cir. 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 25 mediation conference must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any 26 settlemthent terms acceptable to the parties. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 Fth.2d 648, 653 (7 Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official 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 27 settlement position of the party, if appropriate. Pitman v. 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 28 purpose behind requiring the attendance of a person with full settlement 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