(PC) Miramontes v. Meyers ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL MIRAMONTES, Case No. 1:23-cv-00204-ADA-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFEFENCE FOR November 29, 2023, 13 v. AT 1:00 P.M. 14 MEYERS, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court determines that this case will benefit from a 19 settlement conference. Therefore, this case is referred to Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean to 20 conduct a settlement conference, which is scheduled to occur on November 29, 2023, at 1:00 21 p.m. 22 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 23 1. A settlement conference is scheduled to occur on November 29, 2023 at 1:00 p.m., 24 before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The conference shall be conducted via 25 Zoom videoconference and shall last up to three hours. 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 1 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses, and damages at 2 issue in the case. The failure of any counsel, party, or authorized person subject to this 3 order to appear may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference 4 will not proceed and will be reset to another date. 5 4. Defendants shall provide a confidential settlement statement no later than November 6 22, 2023, to the following email address: epgorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff 7 shall mail his confidential settlement statement, clearly captioned “Confidential 8 Settlement Conference Statement,” Attn: Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean, United 9 States District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501, Fresno, CA 93721 so that it 10 arrives no later than November 22, 2023. Parties shall also file a Notice of 11 Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement (see Local Rule 270(d)). 12 5. Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of Court nor served on any 13 other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the 14 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 authority to order parties, including the federal government, to participate in mandatory settlement conferences….” 23 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 settlement conference[s].”). 24 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 settlement terms acceptable to the parties. G. 25 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). 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. 26 Brinker 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 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 (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 the party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 6 conference, including how much the party is willing to accept and/or willing to 7 pay. 8 f. Ifthe parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims 9 not in this suit, a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, 10 including case number(s) if applicable. 11 7. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office at 12 California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Corcoran CA 13 Dated: _ October 13, 2023 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 15 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 Cc: Michelle Rooney, CRD 22 23 24 25 26 27 28