Eshun v. Local Union Number 17
1:19-cv-00256
| E.D. Cal. | May 17, 2021Background
- The court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman for a settlement conference on June 25, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., to be conducted remotely by Zoom.
- The order requires a representative with "full and unlimited authority" to negotiate and enter a binding settlement on the defendants’ behalf to attend in person.
- Attendees must be prepared to discuss claims, defenses, and damages; failure to appear in person may lead to sanctions and rescheduling of the conference.
- Parties must exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days before the conference and email them to kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov; confidential submissions may be made under Local Rule 270(d)–(e).
- The Clerk was directed to serve the order on Plaintiff at his address of record.
- The order explains and relies on precedent defining the court's authority to compel attendance and what constitutes "full authority" to settle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court's authority to compel attendance at mandatory settlement conferences | Court may order parties to participate in settlement conferences | Attendance compulsion may be burdensome or objectionable | District courts have broad authority to compel participation in mandatory settlement conferences |
| Requirement that a representative have "full and unlimited authority" | Eshun (plaintiff) benefits from having an authorized decisionmaker present to negotiate binding settlement | Defendant may prefer limited-authority designee or remote participation | Representative must have full and unfettered authority to explore and agree to settlement terms |
| In-person attendance vs. remote participation for authorized representative | In-person attendance promotes meaningful negotiation | Parties may request remote participation for convenience or health/safety | The order requires the authorized representative to attend in person (conference otherwise remote for other parties) |
| Effect of limited dollar-authority designations | Plaintiff relies on a decisionmaker able to change positions during the conference | Defendant might offer an authorization limited to a specific dollar amount | A limited dollar or sum-certain authorization may fail the "full authority" requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court has broad authority to compel participation in mandatory settlement conferences)
- G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989) (defines "full authority to settle" as authority to explore and agree to settlement terms)
- Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1993) (approves Heileman definition of settlement authority)
- Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Ariz. 2003) (authorized individual must have unfettered discretion to change settlement position)
- Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001) (authorization limited to a fixed dollar amount may be insufficient to satisfy "full authority")