(PC) Raja v. Cryer ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KHURAM RAJA Case No. 1:19-cv-00817-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST 13 v. 30, 2022 AT 1:00 P.M. 14 RYAN KIM, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding on his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 55) filed pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 55). Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, was previously incarcerated 19 at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California. Upon review of the 20 Second Amended Complaint and Answer (Doc. No. 56), the Court determined that this case 21 would benefit from a settlement conference and has continued appointment of counsel for 22 Plaintiff for this purpose. (Doc. No. 57). Therefore, this case is referred to Magistrate Judge 23 Erica P. Grosjean to conduct a settlement conference, which is scheduled to occur on August 30, 24 2022 at 1:00 p.m. 25 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 26 1. A settlement conference is scheduled to occur on August 30, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. before 27 Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean at the U.S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, 28 Fresno, California 93721 by Zoom videoconference. 1 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 2 settlement agreement shall attend.1 3 3. Those in attendance on Zoom must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and 4 damages. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order 5 to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the 6 conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date. 7 4. Plaintiff and Defendant shall provide a confidential settlement statement no later than 8 August 23, 2022 to the following email address: epgorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 9 5. Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on 10 any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with 11 the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. 12 6. The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, 13 typed or neatly printed, and include the following: 14 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 15 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon 16 which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of 17 prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in 18 dispute. 19 c. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and 20 trial. 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 conferences….” United States v. 23 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].”). The term “full 24 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. Heileman Brewing 25 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. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 26 216 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 authority is that the 27 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 28 to settle. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 596-97 (8th Cir. 2001). 1 d. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 2 history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 3 e. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 4 conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay. 5 f. Ifthe parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims 6 not in this suit, give a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, 7 including case number(s) if applicable. 8 ” | Dated: _ June 15, 2022 Mihaw. Th. foareh Hack 10 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 Cc: Michelle Rooney, CRD 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28