(PC) Peters v. Hollie ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 FRANK E. PETERS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01230-NONE-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 13 NORRIS HOLLIE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Frank E. Peters (“Plaintiff”) is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 17 in this action. The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. 18 Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto to conduct a settlement 19 conference on January 18, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by 20 remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. The Court will issue the 21 order detailing the procedures for the settlement conference in due course. 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto 24 on January 18, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by 25 remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. 26 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 27 eee ete enn nen en en EE I I OIE II IEEE ESO 1 settlement shall attend.' 2 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses, and damages at 3 issue in this case. The failure of any counsel, party, or authorized person subject to 4 this order to appear may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the 5 conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 | Dated: _ September 8, 2021 [Je heey □□ 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Aca ' While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district court has the 22 authority to 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 (9% 23 Cir. 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 24 to 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 25 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. 6 Brinker Int’L, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003), amended on recon. in part, Pitman v. Brinker □□□□□□□ 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 (8 Cir. 2001).