Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01665/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01665-12/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

MOIZEZ M. MUNOZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNDERWOOD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01665-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Moizez Munoz (“Plaintiff”) 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 

will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate 

Judge Dennis M. Cota to conduct a settlement conference at the United States District Court, 501 

I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #4, on April 17, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The 

Court will issue the necessary transportation order in due course.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A settlement conference is set for April 17, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States

District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #4, before 

Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota.

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

Case 1:18-cv-01665-DAD-EPG Document 59 Filed 02/20/20 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

settlement on Defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses, and damages at 

issue in this case. 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. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than April 6, 

2020, to dmcorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential 

settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota, USDC CAED, 2986 

Bechelli Lane, Suite 300, Redding, California, 96002, so it arrives no later than April 

6, 2020. The envelope shall be marked “CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT 

STATEMENT.” Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of Submission of 

Confidential Settlement Conference Statement” (see L.R. 270(d)). Settlement 

statements should not be filed with the Clerk of Court nor served on any other 

party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date and 

time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.

5. The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, 

typed or neatly printed, and include the following:

a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon 

which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of 

 

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 1:18-cv-01665-DAD-EPG Document 59 Filed 02/20/20 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

prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in 

dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and 

trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 

history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

g. A brief statement of the party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 

conference, including how much the party is willing to accept and/or willing to 

pay.

h. If the parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims 

not in this suit, a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, 

including case number(s) if applicable.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01665-DAD-EPG Document 59 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 3