(PC) Faultry v. Saechao ( 2021 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 CHARLES B. FAULTRY, No. 2:18-cv-1850 KJM AC P 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 15 J. SAECHAO, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with this civil rights action filed 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a 20 settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 21 Newman to conduct a settlement conference on March 19, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement 22 conference will be conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. The 23 court will issue the necessary transportation order in due course. 24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 26 Newman on March 19, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be 27 conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. 28 ///// 1 2 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 3 settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend personally.' 4 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 5 The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to 6 personally appear may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the 7 conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date. 8 4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days 9 prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered 10 to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Ifa 11 party desires to share additional confidential information with the court, they may do 12 so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). 13 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office 14 at California State Prison, Sacramento, via facsimile at (916) 294-3072. 15 || DATED: February 18, 2021. 16 17 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 □□ ' While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district court has 20 | the 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 Cir. 2012) (“the district court has broad 29 || 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 23 || authorized 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 24 (7" Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1396 25 (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 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 27 || a person with full settlement 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 28 | 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 (8" Cir. 2001).