(PC) Concepcion v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2022 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MYCHAL MACIAS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01743-JLT-BAK (SAB) 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 15 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 16 REHABILITATION, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff Mychal Macias is a prisoner proceeding through counsel in this civil rights action 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a 21 settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. 22 Delaney to conduct a settlement conference on December 13, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. The settlement 23 conference will be conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video 24 conference. The court will issue the necessary transportation order in due course. 25 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. 27 Delaney on December 13, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. The settlement conference will be 28 conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. 2 2. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the 3 Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The 4 individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and 5 authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose 6 behind requiring the attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the 7 parties’ view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An 8 authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be found not to 9 comply with the requirement of full authority to settle1. 10 3. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than 11 December 6, 2022 to ckdorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his 12 confidential settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney, USDC 13 CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814 so it arrives no later 14 than December 6, 2022. The envelope shall be marked “CONFIDENTIAL 15 SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of 16 Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)). 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 typed or neatly printed, and include the following: 22 1 While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district court has the authority to 23 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 (9th Cir. 2012) 24 (“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 to fully 25 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 (7th Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official Airline 26 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 27 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 28 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 requirement of full authority to settle. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 596-97 (8th Cir. 2001). 1 2 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 3 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, 1.e., statutory or other grounds upon 4 which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of 5 prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in 6 dispute. 7 c. A summary of the proceedings to date. 8 d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and 9 trial. 10 e. The relief sought. 11 f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 12 history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 13 g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 14 conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay. 15 h. Ifthe parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims 16 not in this suit, give a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, 17 including case number(s) if applicable. 18 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office 19 at the Central California Women’s Facility via facsimile at (559) 665-6020 or via 20 email. 21 29 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 23 | Dated: _September 14, 2022 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28