CHILDS v. STATE

No. 2:13-cv-0670-TLN-EFB P.

E. CHILDS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Earl Childs, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Jones, Defendant, represented by Pamela B. Hooley , Attorney General's Office for the State of California.

Ramirez, Defendant, represented by Pamela B. Hooley , Attorney General's Office for the State of California.

Dichoso, Defendant, represented by Pamela B. Hooley , Attorney General's Office for the State of California.

Imhoff, Defendant, represented by Pamela B. Hooley , Attorney General's Office for the State of California.

Navahandi, Defendant, represented by Pamela B. Hooley , Attorney General's Office for the State of California.

Tapiz, Defendant, represented by Pamela B. Hooley , Attorney General's Office for the State of California.

Brown, Defendant, represented by Pamela B. Hooley , Attorney General's Office for the State of California.

Nelson, Defendant, represented by Pamela B. Hooley , Attorney General's Office for the State of California.


ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action under 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 Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on April 12, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with this order.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on April 12, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25. 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on the defendants' behalf shall attend in person.1 3. Those in attendance 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. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered to the Court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement to arrive not less than seven days prior to the settlement conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall be marked "Settlement Statement." If a party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

FootNotes


1. 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).

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases