(PC) Allen v. Lopez ( 2022 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KEVIN ALLEN, Case No. 1:18-cv-00808-JLT-EPG (PC) 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 15 DR. SPAETH, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed this civil rights action seeking 19 relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983. A Joint Request for a Settlement Conference was filed and granted. 20 (ECF Nos. 99 & 100). Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota 21 to conduct a settlement conference on August 25, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. The settlement conference 22 will be conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota 25 on August 25, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by 26 remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. 27 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 28 2 settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend.1 3 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses, and damages. 4 The failure of any counsel, party, or authorized person subject to this order to appear 5 may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not proceed 6 and will be reset to another date. 7 4. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than August 8 18, 2022, to dmcorders@caed.uscourts.gov. If Plaintiff does not have access to the 9 internet, Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement statement Attn: Magistrate 10 Judge Dennis M. Cota, USDC CAED, 2986 Bechelli Lane, Suite 300, Redding, 11 California 96002, so it arrives no later than August 18, 2022. The envelope shall be 12 marked “CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” Parties are also directed 13 to file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement.” 14 (See L.R. 270(d)). Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of Court 15 nor served on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked 16 “confidential” with the date and time of the settlement conference indicated 17 prominently thereon. 18 5. The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, 19 typed or neatly printed, and include the following: 20 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 21 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon 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 which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of 3 prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in 4 dispute. 5 c. A summary of the proceedings to date. 6 d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and 7 trial. 8 e. The relief sought. 9 f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 10 history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 11 g. A brief statement of the party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 12 conference, including how much the party is willing to accept and/or willing to 13 pay. 14 h. Ifthe parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims 15 not in this suit, a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, 16 including case number(s) if applicable. 17 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order via fax on the Litigation 18 Office at California State Prison, Corcoran at (559) 992-7372, or via email. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21] Dated: _ June 13, 2022 [Jee hey □ 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28