(PC) Tucker v. Lizarraga ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW MICHAEL TUCKER, Case No. 1:19-CV-736-AWI-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON MONDAY, FEBUARY 13 v. 7, 2022 AT 10:30 A.M. 14 KYLE MOHR, ET. AL., (Doc. No. 50) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as a 18 prisoner and is currently incarcerated at California State Prison. The Court determines that this 19 case will benefit from a settlement conference and the parties 14-day period to object has expired. 20 (Doc. No. 49). Therefore, this case is referred to Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean to conduct a 21 settlement conference, which is scheduled to occur on Monday, February 7, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. 22 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 23 1. A settlement conference is scheduled to occur on February 7, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. 24 before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean at the U.S. District Court, 2500 Tulare 25 Street, Fresno, California 93721 by Zoom videoconference. 26 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 27 settlement agreement shall attend.1 28 1 While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district court has the authority to order 1 3. Those in attendance on Zoom must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and 2 damages. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order 3 to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the 4 conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date. 5 4. Defendants shall provide a confidential settlement statement no later than January 24, 6 2022 to the following email address: epgorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall 7 mail his confidential settlement statement, clearly captioned “Confidential Settlement 8 Conference Statement,” Attn: Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean, United States 9 District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501, Fresno, CA 93721 so that it arrives no 10 later than January 24, 2022. Parties shall also file a Notice of Submission of 11 Confidential Settlement Conference Statement (See Local Rule 270(d)). 12 5. Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on 13 any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with 14 the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. 15 6. The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, 16 typed or neatly printed, and include the following: 17 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 18 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon 19 which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of 20 prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in 21 dispute. 22 parties, including the federal government, to participate in mandatory settlement conferences….” United States v. 23 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 “full 24 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 Brewing 25 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 Int’l., Inc., 26 216 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 27 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 28 to settle. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 596-97 (8th Cir. 2001). 1 c. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and 2 trial. 3 d. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 4 history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 5 e. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 6 conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay. 7 f. Ifthe parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims 8 not in this suit, give a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, 9 including case number(s) if applicable. 10 7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office 11 | at California State Prison-Sacramento. 12 'S | Dated: _ December 2, 2021 Mihaw. □□ fares Zackte 14 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28