(PC) Nino v. Munoz, 1:20-cv-01722

Joe Nino, the plaintiff, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against J. Munoz and others.
The case is pending in the Eastern District of California.
The court has determined the case may benefit from alternative dispute resolution efforts.
A settlement conference has been scheduled for March 12, 2025, before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.
All parties are ordered to appear, with representatives having full authority to settle, and are required to submit confidential settlement statements before the conference.
Strict participation requirements are set, including presence or availability of key decisionmakers—otherwise, sanctions or rescheduling may result.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mandatory participation in settlement	Nino ready for settlement	Munoz must attend/prepared	All parties and decisionmakers must attend or be available
Scope of settlement authority required	Needs full authority	Should not be limited amount	Must have full, unfettered authority to settle without limits
Confidential settlement statement timing	Will comply	Will comply	Must submit by set deadline, not filed or served to other parties
Use of discussions/statements at trial	Should remain confidential	Should remain confidential	Conference communications/statements inadmissible at trial

United States v. United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2012) (confirms district court’s broad authority to compel participation in settlement conferences)
G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989) (those attending settlement must have full authority to negotiate)
Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1993) (approving full settlement authority requirement)
Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001) (limited authority does not meet requirement for full settlement authority)