Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02041/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02041-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EXCEPTIONAL INNOVATIONS v. KONTRON No. 07-2041-LAB(LSP)

HON. LEO S. PAPAS CT. DEPUTY J. JARABEK Rptr. 3 H 

Attorneys

Plaintiffs Defendants

JEFFREY WERTHEIMER NORMAN SMITH 

 ELIZABETH MITCHELL 

 

ENE held. Further Settlement Conference shall be held on February 19,

2008 at 2:00 PM.

All parties or their representatives who have full authority to enter into

a binding settlement, in addition to the attorneys participating in the

litigation, shall be present at the conference.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims

adjusters for insured defendants with full and unlimited authority to

negotiate and enter into a binding settlement, as well as the principal

attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present and legally

and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the mandatory

settlement conference. 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. 

"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 Intl., Inc.,

216 F.R.D. 481, 485-486 (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).

The Court determines that the requirements of FRCP 26 shall be delayed.

DATED: January 15, 2008

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02041-MMA-WVG Document 15 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 1