(PC) Park v. Fisher
1:19-cv-01616
E.D. Cal.Aug 11, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Kenneth Park is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The Court determined the case would benefit from a settlement conference and referred it to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire.
- A settlement conference was set for December 15, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., to be conducted by remote means (specifics to be determined); the Court will issue any necessary transportation order for the incarcerated plaintiff.
- The Court ordered that a party representative with full and unfettered settlement authority attend (or be fully authorized to settle on any terms) and explained that limited or capped authority may be inadequate.
- Parties must submit confidential settlement statements (no more than five pages) by December 8, 2020, with specified content and procedures (sent to the magistrate’s chambers, not filed on the public docket).
- The Clerk was directed to serve the order on the prison Litigation Coordinator to facilitate compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to hold a settlement conference | Park seeks resolution and court supervision of settlement efforts | No substantive opposition on record | Court ordered a settlement conference on Dec. 15, 2020, to be held remotely |
| Requirement that attendees have full settlement authority | Park (and other parties) must attend or be fully authorized to settle | Defendants must likewise send authorized representatives | Court required attendance of a principal with "full authority" and "unfettered discretion" to change positions; limited-dollar authorization may be insufficient |
| Content, format, and submission of confidential settlement statements | Park must submit a five‑page confidential statement by the deadline via mail to chambers | Defendants must e-mail confidential statements to chambers; statements not to be filed publicly | Court directed confidential statements no longer than five pages, listing specific content, due Dec. 8, 2020, and not to be filed on the public docket |
| Remote conduct of conference and prisoner logistics | Park (incarcerated) requires arrangements/transport or remote access | Defendants/prison expected to cooperate with logistics | Court ordered the conference to be conducted remotely and stated it will issue necessary transportation order for the prisoner |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2012) (district courts have broad authority to compel participation in mandatory settlement conferences)
- Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989) (definition of "full authority" for settlement representatives)
- Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1993) (approving Heileman’s definition of settlement authority)
- Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Ariz. 2003) (requiring representatives to have discretion to change settlement positions during conference)
- Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding that an authorization limited to a specific dollar amount may not satisfy the full-authority requirement)