(PS) Mehl v. Zip Capital Group, LLC ( 2021 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 GAVIN MEHL, No. 2:20-cv-2099 TLN AC PS 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 15 ZIP CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, 16 Defendant. 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 Dennis M. Cota for the court’s 20 Settlement Week program to conduct a settlement conference on May 26, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. The 21 settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom 22 video conference. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota 25 on May 26, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote 26 means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. 27 2. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the 28 Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The 1 2 individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and 3 authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose 4 behind requiring the attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the 5 arties’ view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An Pp y 6 authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be found not to 7 comply with the requirement of full authority to settle’. 8 3. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than May 19, 9 2021 to dmcorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of 10 Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)). 11 DATED: April 30, 2021 12 Lhar—e_ _CMhun—llre 13 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ! 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 23 conferences... .” United States v. United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9t Cir. 2012)(“the district court has broad authority to compel participation in mandatory 24 settlement conference[s].”). The term “full authority to settle” means that the individuals attending the mediation conference must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any 25 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 Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1396 (9% Cir. 1993). 6 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. Brinker Int’, 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 authority is that the parties’ view of 28 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).