Opinion
No. 2:13-cv-1793 KJM KJN P
07-01-2016
WILLIAM BARKER, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through retained counsel, with a complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and California state law. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on November 9, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.
The parties will be required to file a signed Waiver of Disqualification (included below) no later than October 14, 2016.
A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with this order.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on November 9, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.Dated: July 1, 2016 /bark1793.med
2. Parties are required to file a signed Waiver of Disqualification, no later than October 14, 2016.
3. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement shall attend in person.
4. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not proceed and will be reset to another date.
5. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. If a party desires to share additional confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).
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. 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 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 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 (9
/s/_________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WAIVER OF DISQUALIFICATION
Under Local Rule 270(b) of the Eastern District of California, the parties to the herein action affirmatively request that Magistrate Judge Newman participate in the settlement conference scheduled for November 9, 2016. To the extent the parties consent to trial of the case before the assigned magistrate judge, they waive any claim of disqualification to the assigned magistrate judge trying the case thereafter.
By:
Attorney for plaintiff
Dated:__________
By:
Attorney for defendants
Dated:__________
th 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., 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 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).