Opinion
2:20-cv-0978 DB P
09-14-2021
MAURICE L. FRAZIER, Plaintiff, v. JANAM, et al., Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Due to an inadvertent omission in the court's original order setting the settlement conference (ECF No. 33), the undersigned now issues the instant amended order.
The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota to conduct a settlement conference on October 14, 2021 at 9:30 a.m . The settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. The Court will issue the necessary transportation order in due course.
Defendants also requested that the extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines set forth in the June 21, 2021 Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 28). (ECF No. 30.) Good cause appearing the court will grant the request.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on October 14, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiated and enter into a binding settlement on the defendants' behalf shall attend in person.
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 (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., 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).
3. 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.
4. The parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than October 7, 2021 to dmcorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota, USDC CAED, 2986 Bechelli Lane, Suite 300, Redding, California 96002 so it arrives no later than October 7, 2021. The envelope shall be marked “CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement” (See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 270(d)).
Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.
The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed or neatly printed, and include the following:
a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.
b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in dispute.
c. A summary of the proceedings to date.
d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and trial.
e. The relief sought.
f. The party's position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
g. A brief statement of each party's expectations and goals for the settlement conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay.
h. If the parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims not in this suit, give a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, including case number(s) if applicable.
5. Judge Cota or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties either by telephone or in person, approximately two weeks prior to the settlement conference, to ascertain each party's expectations of the settlement conference.
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office at Mule Creek State Prison via facsimile at (209) 274-5018 or via email.