(PC) Norsworthy v. Diaz ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLE-LAEL B. NORSWORTHY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00813-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFEFENCE FOR TUESDAY, 13 v. NOVEMBER 18, 2021 AT 10:30 A.M. 14 RALPH DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as a 18 prisoner and is currently incarcerated at Central California Women’s Facility. The Court 19 determines that this case will benefit from a settlement conference and the parties 30-day period 20 to object has expired. (Doc. No. 47). This case is therefore referred to Magistrate Judge Erica P. 21 Grosjean to conduct a settlement conference, which is scheduled to occur on November 18, 2021 22 at 10:30 a.m. 23 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 24 1. A settlement conference is scheduled to occur on November 18, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. 25 before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean at the U.S. District Court, 2500 Tulare 26 Street, Fresno, California 93721 by Zoom videoconference. 27 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 28 1 settlement agreement shall attend.1 2 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses, and damages at 3 issue in the case. The failure of any counsel, party, or authorized person subject to this 4 order to appear may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference 5 will not proceed and will be reset to another date. 6 4. Defendants shall provide a confidential settlement statement no later than November 7 12, 2021 to the following email address: epgorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall 8 mail his confidential settlement statement, clearly captioned “Confidential Settlement 9 Conference Statement,” Attn: Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean, United States 10 District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501, Fresno, CA 93721 so that it arrives no 11 later than November 12, 2021. Parties shall also file a Notice of Submission of 12 Confidential Settlement Conference Statement (see Local Rule 270(d)). 13 5. Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on 14 any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with 15 the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. 16 6. The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, 17 typed or neatly printed, and include the following: 18 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 19 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon 20 which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of 21 22 1 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 conferences….” United States 23 v. United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2012) (“the district court has broad authority to compel participation in mandatory settlement conference[s].”). The term 24 “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 settlement terms acceptable to the parties. G. Heileman 25 Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official 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. Brinker 26 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 27 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 28 requirement of full authority to settle. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 596-97 (8th Cir. 2001). ] prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in 2 dispute. 3 c. Anestimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and 4 trial. 5 d. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 6 history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 7 e. A brief statement of the party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 8 conference, including how much the party is willing to accept and/or willing to 9 pay. 10 f. Ifthe parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims 1] not in this suit, a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, 12 including case number(s) if applicable. 13 7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation 14 Office at Central California Women’s Facility. 15 '© | Dated: _ August 26, 2021 Wh fareh Base Ake 17 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Cc: Michelle Rooney, CRD 26 27 28