Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02310/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02310-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332in Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1 

13-CV-2310-GPC(WVG) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ERNEST O. ABBIT, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ING USA ANNUITY AND LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 13-CV-2310-GPC(WVG) 

ORDER AFTER STATUS 

CONFERENCE: 

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR 

DISCOVERY AS MOOT; 

[Doc. No. 78] 

(2) LIFTING STAY OF DISCOVERY 

AS TO INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS; and 

(3) SETTING MANDATORY 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. 

 The Court held an attorneys-only telephonic status conference on January 4, 2017 to 

discuss the progression of the case and other matters. After conferring with the parties, the 

Court orders as follows: 

1. The parties agree that the pending joint motion related to a pending discovery dispute 

is now moot. (See Doc. No. 78.) Accordingly, that motion is DENIED without prejudice. 

2. The stay of discovery related to Plaintiff’s individual claims is hereby lifted. 

3. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on February 3, 2017, at 

1:00 p.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo. Counsel shall submit a 

Case 3:13-cv-02310-GPC-WVG Document 137 Filed 01/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

13-CV-2310-GPC(WVG) 

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

15-page maximum joint settlement statement directly to chambers no later than January 

27, 2017. The joint statement shall set forth each party’s statement of the case, identify 

controlling legal issues, concisely set out issues of liability and damages, and shall set forth 

the party’s settlement position, including the last offer or demand made by each party. The 

parties shall meet and confer in good faith prior to the Mandatory Settlement Conference, 

and verify that they have done so in the joint statement, outlining the substance of their 

discussions and negotiations. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Local Civil Rule 16.3, all named 

Plaintiffs, named Defendants, claims adjusters for insured defendants, and if a named 

Plaintiff or Defendant is a corporation, partnership, or other entity, a representative of that 

entity, with full and unlimited authority1

 to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement, 

as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present and must 

be prepared to discuss in good faith, the facts of the case, the law that governs the legal 

issues in the case, and to resolve the case at the Settlement Conference. Sanctions may 

issue against a party and/or attorney who does not proceed as noted above. Retained 

outside corporate counsel shall not appear on behalf of a corporation as the party who has 

the authority to negotiate and enter into a settlement. For good cause, and on ex parte 

application at least one week before the scheduled settlement conference, Magistrate Judge 

Gallo may excuse a party or representative from personal attendance provided such party 

or parties will be available by telephone during the conference. Failure to attend the 

                                                                

1

 “Full authority to settle” means that the individuals at the settlement conference must be 

authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement 

terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 

648 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to 

change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 

485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement 

authority to attend the conference includes that the person’s view of the case may be altered 

during the face to face conference. Id. at 486. A limited or a sum certain of authority is 

not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001). 

Case 3:13-cv-02310-GPC-WVG Document 137 Filed 01/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

13-CV-2310-GPC(WVG) 

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

conference or participate in good faith or obtain proper excuse will be considered grounds 

for sanctions. Counsel seeking to reschedule a Settlement Conference must first confer 

with opposing counsel. The Court will consider formal, written ex parte requests to 

continue a Settlement Conference when extraordinary circumstances exist that make a 

continuance appropriate. In and of itself, having to travel a long distance to appear at the 

Settlement Conference is not an extraordinary circumstance. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 4, 2017 

Case 3:13-cv-02310-GPC-WVG Document 137 Filed 01/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3