Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00642/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00642-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sean L. Hargrow, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Federal Express Corporation, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-642-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Mishka Marshall, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Mary Beard appearing on

behalf of Defendant with Defendant's representative. 

The court issued an order requiring Defendant to show cause why it should not be

sanctioned for violating the court's June 30, 2006 order setting a settlement conference. The

order required Defendant to appear through "a representative having binding settlement

authority in addition to counsel." (Emphasis supplied.)

Mary Beard, in-house counsel for Defendant, appeared at the settlement conference

and assured the court that as "lead counsel," she had full settlement authority. However,

soon after the settlement conference began, it became apparent that Ms. Beard had only

limited authority to resolve Plaintiff's case. When a settlement amount beyond Ms. Beard's

settlement authority was discussed, Ms. Beard contacted Mr. Clint Saxton seeking additional

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC Document 104 Filed 08/23/06 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 -

settlement authority. Ms. Beard and the court were unsuccessful in convincing Mr. Clint

Saxton to increase the settlement authority.

Ms. Beard did not have binding settlement authority when she appeared at the

settlement conference. If Ms. Beard had the settlement authority she professed to have, the

case would have settled.

Therefore, the court concludes that Defendant violated the court's June 30, 2006 order.

As a sanction for the violation, Defendant is ordered to pay directly to Plaintiff's counsel the

sum of $2,000.00. Said sum is to be paid within 20 days from the date hereof. 

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC Document 104 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2