Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00414/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00414-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALONZO JAMES JOSEPH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. PARCIASEPE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0414 GEB AC P 

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a 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 set for a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge 

Kendall J. Newman on January 4, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25. 

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 January 4, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25. 

Case 2:14-cv-00414-GEB-AC Document 51 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 2

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 

settlement 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). 

DATED: October 13, 2016 

 

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). 

Case 2:14-cv-00414-GEB-AC Document 51 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 2