(PS) Ervin v. Jones ( 2021 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 GARY WAYNE ERVIN, No. 2:19-cv-01883-KJM-CKD PS 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 15 JAMES DRENNAN, 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 Dennis M. Cota for the court’s 20 Settlement Week program to conduct a settlement conference on May 26, 2021 at 9:30 a.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 9:30 a.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 ——— mE EI II OE I IOI OSE I EO 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 parties’ view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An 6 authorization to settle fora 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 9 May 19, 2021 to dmcorders @caed.uscourts.gov. Parties are also directed to file a 10 “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)). 11 Dated: April 15, 2021 Oh Pe TS / . j if Jp + a Candfe h. “AR 12 — eee CAROLYN K. DELANEY 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ! While the exercise of its authority is subjectto 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 yv. United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9' Cir. 2012) 24 (“the district court has broad authority to compel participation n mandatory settlement conference[s].”). The term “full authority to settle” means that the individuals attending the mediation conference must be authorized to fully 25 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 approvalin Official Airline 26 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. Brinker 27 Int’L, Inc., 216F.R.D. 481,485-86(D. Ariz. 2003), amended onrecon. 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 thatthe parties’ view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. Pitman,216F.R.D. at486. An authorization to settle fora limited dollar amount orsum 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).