From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. Deazevedo

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 27, 2015
1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015)

Opinion


TIMOTHY HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. D.L. DEAZEVEDO, et al., Defendants. No. 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO (PC) United States District Court, E.D. California. March 27, 2015

          ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

          ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.

         This case has been selected for inclusion in the Prisoner Settlement Program based on the parties' agreement that a settlement conference may be beneficial. This case is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #25 on April 2, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.

         A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with this order.

         In accordance with the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follow:

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before United States Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on April 2, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #25.

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate 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 by 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. Pittman 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., No. CV02-1886PHX DGC, 2003 WL 23353478, at *3 (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).

Defense counsel Susan Coleman may appear by telephone.

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 requested to send Judge Newman a settlement conference statement as soon as possible but prior to April 2, 2015, so that he may ascertain each party's expectations of the settlement conference.

5. The settlement conference statements shall address whether there have been any previous settlement negotiations.

6. The Court recognizes that the timeline is short. Therefore, Deputy Attorney General R. Lawrence Bragg is requested to send a copy of this order to the Litigation Coordinator at California State Prison-Sacramento by facsimile and request it be hand delivered to Plaintiff as soon as possible.

7. The Clerk's Office shall serve this order and the other two concurrently issued orders on Plaintiff at his address of record and at California State Prison-Sacramento.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Howard v. Deazevedo

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 27, 2015
1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015)
Case details for

Howard v. Deazevedo

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. D.L. DEAZEVEDO, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Mar 27, 2015

Citations

1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015)