Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01308/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01308-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN KAWAMOTO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:11-cv-01308-LJO-MJS

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff Darren Kawamoto is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has 

determined that this case would benefit from a settlement conference; therefore, this 

case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman for a settlement conference 

at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom 25 on 

November 6, 2014 at 1:00 p.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 November 6, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. at the U.S. District Court, 501 I 

Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom 25.

Case 1:11-cv-01308-LJO-MJS Document 49 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 3
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. Plaintiff will appear at the settlement conference by telephone, from the 

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, as directed by separate order.

3. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into 

a binding settlement shall attend in person.1

4. 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.

5. Judge Newman or another representative from the court will be contacting 

the parties either by telephone or in person, approximately one week prior to the 

settlement conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement 

conference.

6. All discovery in the case is stayed, pending the completion of the

settlement conference. Discovery deadlines will be reset following the settlement 

conference if needed. Responses for any discovery request previously served by either 

party and currently pending is stayed until 30 days after the settlement conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

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. Pittman 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 1:11-cv-01308-LJO-MJS Document 49 Filed 10/03/14 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case 1:11-cv-01308-LJO-MJS Document 49 Filed 10/03/14 Page 3 of 3