(PC) Williams v. Fannon ( 2021 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 GENTRY WILLIAMS, No. 2:19-cv-0486 MCE DB P 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 15 J. FANNON, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983. The parties are in agreement that a settlement conference is appropriate at this time. 20 Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman for the court’s 21 Settlement Week program to conduct a settlement conference on May 25, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. The 22 settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and 23 time. The Court will issue the necessary transportation order in due course. 24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The parties’ motions for a settlement conference (ECF Nos. 38, 40) are granted. 26 2. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 27 Newman on May 25, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote 28 means, to be determined at a later date and time. 2 3. The parties, both appearing pro se, are required to personally appear1 with full 3 authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement.2 4 4. 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 person 6 may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not proceed and will be 7 reset to another date. 8 5. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements by U.S. 9 mail so that they arrive at least seven (7) days prior to the settlement conference. Defendant’s 10 statement shall simultaneously be delivered to the court using the following email address: 11 kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement Attn: 12 Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 13 95814 so that it arrives at least seven (7) days prior to the settlement conference. The envelope 14 shall be marked “SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” The date and time of the settlement 15 conference shall be prominently indicated on the settlement statement. If a party desires to share 16 //// 17 //// 18 //// 19 //// 20 //// 21 1 “Personal appearance” includes appearance by remote means, such as Zoom video conferencing. 22 2 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 (9th 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 (7th Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official 26 Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1396 (9th 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 (8th Cir. 2001). 1 2 | additional confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of 3 | Local Rule 270(d) and (e). 4 | Dated: March 29, 2021 5 6 7 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 | pLB:9 DB/prisoner-civil rights/will0486.med 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28