(PC) Kidwell v. California Prison Industry Authority

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 JASON HARPER, Case No. 1:17-cv-01717-LJO-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 13 v. CONFERENCE ON NOVEMBER 8, 2019 14 JEFF BLAZO, 15 Defendant. — 16 — 17 Jason Harper (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The Court has determined that this case will 19 benefit from a second settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to a Magistrate 20 Judge to conduct a settlement conference at California State Prison, Corcoran (CSP-COR), 4001 King 21 Avenue, Corcoran, CA 93212, on November 8, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. The Court will issue the necessary 22 transportation order in due course. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before a federal Magistrate Judge on November 25 8, 2019, at CSP-COR. 26 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding — 27 — — 28 — 1 settlement shall attend in person.1 2 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses, and damages at issue 3 in this case. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to 4 appear in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will 5 not proceed and will be reset to another date. 6 4. Defendant shall provide a confidential settlement statement to the following email address: 7 settleconf@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement statement to 8 U.S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California, 93721, “Attention: Institution 9 Settlement Judge for November 8, 2019.” The envelope shall be marked “Confidential 10 Settlement Statement.” Settlement statements shall arrive no later than November 1, 2019. 11 Parties shall also file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference 12 Statement (see Local Rule 270(d)). Settlement statements should not be filed with the 13 Clerk of Court nor served on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly 14 marked Aconfidential@ with the date and time of the settlement conference indicated 15 prominently thereon. 16 5. The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed 17 or neatly printed, and include the following: 18 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 19 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon — 20 — — 21 — 1 While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district court has the authority to 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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 , 48526 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 27 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 28 th 1 which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of 2 prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in 3 dispute. 4 c. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and 5 trial. 6 d. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 7 history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 8 e. A brief statement of the party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 9 conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay. 10 f. Ifthe parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims nc 11 in this suit, give a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, 12 including case number(s) if applicable. — 13 — 14 IS SO ORDERED. | pated: _ September 6, 2019 [sf ee ey 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —