(PC) Sosa v. CSATF Warden ( 2021 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JORGE LUIS SOSA, No. 1:19-cv-01333-NONE-EPG (PC) 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 15 R. HULSE, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Jorge Luis Sosa (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The court has determined that this case 20 will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate 21 Judge Carolyn K. Delaney to conduct a settlement conference on May 28, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. The 22 settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and 23 time. The 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 Carolyn K. 26 Delaney on May 28, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. The settlement conference will be conducted 27 by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. 28 2. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the 2 Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The 3 individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and 4 authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose 5 behind requiring the attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the 6 parties’ view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An 7 authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be found not to 8 comply with the requirement of full authority to settle1. 9 3. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than May 21, 10 2021 to ckdorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement 11 statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, 12 Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814 so it arrives no later than May 21, 2021. 13 The envelope shall be marked “CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” 14 Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement 15 Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)). 16 17 Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on 18 any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with 19 the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. 20 The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, 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 23 conferences… .” United States 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 24 settlement conference[s].”). The term “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 25 settlement terms acceptable to the parties. G. Heileman 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). 26 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., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 27 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 parties’ view of 28 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 (8th Cir. 2001). 1 2 typed or neatly printed, and include the following: 3 4 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 5 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, 1.e., statutory or other grounds upon 6 which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of 7 prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in 8 dispute. 9 c. A summary of the proceedings to date. 10 d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and 11 trial. 12 e. The relief sought. 13 f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 14 history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 15 g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 16 conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay. 17 h. Ifthe parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims 18 not in this suit, give a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, 19 including case number(s) if applicable. 20 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office 21 at Salinas Valley State Prison, via facsimile at (831) 678-5544 or via email. 22 93 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _March 19, 2021 [Je hey 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28