From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCoy v. Spidle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 12, 2012
No. CV-07-198-SMM (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012)

Opinion

No. CV-07-198-SMM

04-12-2012

Davon E. McCoy, Plaintiff, v. R. Spidle, et al., Defendants.


ORDER SETTING

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel with an action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng to conduct a settlement conference at Salinas Valley State Prison, 31625 Highway 101, Soledad, California 93960 on May 18, 2012 at 1:00 p.m.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on May 18, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. at Salinas Valley State Prison, 31625 Highway 101, Soledad, California 93960.

2. Defendants' lead counsel and a person with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on defendants' behalf shall attend in person.

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. 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., 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. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement conference statement to Sujean Park, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814, or via e-mail at spark@caed.uscourts.gov, so they arrive no later than May 11, 2012 and file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement (See 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 three 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.

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office at Salinas Valley State Prison via facsimile at (831) 678-5544.

_________________

Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

McCoy v. Spidle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 12, 2012
No. CV-07-198-SMM (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012)
Case details for

McCoy v. Spidle

Case Details

Full title:Davon E. McCoy, Plaintiff, v. R. Spidle, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 12, 2012

Citations

No. CV-07-198-SMM (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012)