Case Information
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KENNETH PARK, Case No. 1:19-cv-01616-NONE-EPG (PC) Plaintiff,
v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE JOSE CHAVEZ, et al.,
Defendants. Kenneth Park (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire to conduct a settlement conference on December 15, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. The Court will issue the necessary transportation order in due course.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on
December 15, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, to be determined at a later date and time. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the
Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. 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. 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. [1] Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than December 8, 2020, to acorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Allison Claire, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814, so that it arrives no later than December 8, 2020. The envelope shall be marked “CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement.” (See L.R. 270(d)). Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of 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 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. 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 the party’s expectations and goals for the settlement
conference, including how much the party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay.
h. If the parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims
not in this suit, a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, including case number(s) if applicable. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation
Coordinator at Valley State Prison via email.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 10, 2020 /s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[1] While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district court has the 23 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 (9 th Cir. 2012) (“the district court has broad authority to compel participation in mandatory settlement conference[s].”). 24 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. 25 Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7 th Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1396 (9 th Cir. 1993). The individual with full authority to settle must also 26 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., 27 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. 28 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 (8 th Cir. 2001).