From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Raja v. Kim

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 15, 2022
1:19-cv-00817-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2022)

Opinion

1:19-cv-00817-HBK (PC)

06-15-2022

KHURAM RAJA Plaintiff, v. RYAN KIM, Defendants.


ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2022 AT 1:00 P.M.

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff is proceeding on his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 55) filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 55). Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, was previously incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California. Upon review of the Second Amended Complaint and Answer (Doc. No. 56), the Court determined that this case would benefit from a settlement conference and has continued appointment of counsel for Plaintiff for this purpose. (Doc. No. 57). Therefore, this case is referred to Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean to conduct a settlement conference, which is scheduled to occur on August 30, 2022 at 1:00 p.m.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. A settlement conference is scheduled to occur on August 30, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean at the U.S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721 by Zoom videoconference.
2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement agreement shall attend.
3. Those in attendance on Zoom 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. Plaintiff and Defendant shall provide a confidential settlement statement no later than August 23, 2022 to the following email address: epgorders@ caed.uscourts.gov.
5. 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.
6. 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. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and trial.
d. The party's position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
e. 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.
f. 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.

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).


Summaries of

Raja v. Kim

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 15, 2022
1:19-cv-00817-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2022)
Case details for

Raja v. Kim

Case Details

Full title:KHURAM RAJA Plaintiff, v. RYAN KIM, Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 15, 2022

Citations

1:19-cv-00817-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2022)