(PC) Holston v. Viera Rosa ( 2021 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THERON KENNETH HOLSTON, No. 2:20-cv-01076-KJM-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 14 G. VIERA ROSA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will 19 benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge 20 Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference on July 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. The 21 settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and 22 time. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 25 Newman on July 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. The settlement conference will be conducted 26 by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. 27 //// 28 //// 1 2 3 2. representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 4 settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.! 5 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 6 The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in 7 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not 8 proceed and will be reset to another date. 9 4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days 10 prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered 11 to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. If 12 plaintiff does not have access to the internet, plaintiff shall mail his non-confidential 13 settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I 14 Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814 so that it arrives at least seven (7) days 15 prior to the settlement conference. The envelope shall be marked “SETTLEMENT 16 STATEMENT.” The date and time of the settlement conference shall be prominently 17 indicated on the settlement statement. Ifa party desires to share additional 18 confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of 19 Local Rule 270(d) and (e). 20 || Dated: June 3, 2021 Ay ae dias lg es Card fp. fl. AG CAROLYN K. DELANEY 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ' 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 y. 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 26 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. 7 Brinker Int’L., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003), amended on recon. in part, Pitman v. Brinker Int’1., 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 Cir. 2001).