Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00673/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00673-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,

SHEPPARD, WAYTE &

CARRUTH LLP

7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO, CA 93720

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard,

Wayte & Carruth LLP

Mart B. Oller IV, #149186

 marty.oller@mccormickbarstow.com

7647 North Fresno Street

Fresno, California 93720

Telephone: (559) 433-1300

Facsimile: (559) 433-2300

Attorneys for Defendants FRESNO UNIFIED 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, TERESA MONPERE, 

CHRISTIE YANG and RON BOHIGIAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

LEDELLDRA BROOKS and A.J., a minor, by 

and through her guardian ad litem 

LEDELLDRA BROOKS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

THERESA MONPERE, CHRISTIE YANG 

and RON BHOIGIAN and DOES 1-30,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00673-WBS-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

(Doc. 23)

The parties through their respective counsel have agreed to conduct a Settlement Conference 

with Magistrate Judge Jennifer Thurston on August 25, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6. The parties 

have met and conferred and have agreed that the individual defendants: YANG, BOHIGIAN and 

MONPERE need not personally appear at the Settlement Conference.

Dated: August 13, 2015 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,

WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP

By: /s/ Mart B. Oller IV

Mart B. Oller IV

Attorneys for Defendants FRESNO UNIFIED 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, TERESA MONPERE, 

CHRISTIE YANG and RON BOHIGIAN

[Exempt From Filing Fee

Government Code § 6103] Case 1:15-cv-00673-WBS-BAM Document 24 Filed 08/14/15 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,

SHEPPARD, WAYTE &

CARRUTH LLP

7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO, CA 93720

Dated: August 13, 2015

By: /s/ Todd Boley

Todd Boley

Attorneys for Plaintiffs LEDELLDRA BROOKS 

and A.J., a minor by and through her guardian ad 

litem LEDELLDRA BROOKS

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. A settlement conference is set on August 25, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6 before 

Magistrate Judge Jennifer Thurston;

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the Court, the attorneys who will try the case 

shall appear at the Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons having full 

authority to negotiate and settle the case on any terms at the conference.1 Defendants YANG, 

BOHIGIAN and MONPERE need not personally appear at the Settlement Conference.

3. Consideration of settlement is a serious matter that requires preparation prior to the 

settlement conference. Set forth below are the procedures the Court will employ, absent good cause, 

in conducting the conference:

a. No later than August 19, 2015 at noon, Plaintiff SHALL submit to Defendant via fax 

or e-mail, a written itemization of damages and a meaningful2 settlement demand which includes a 

brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate;

b. Thereafter, no later than August 21, 2015 at noon, Defendant SHALL respond, via 

 

1

Insurance carriers, business organizations, and governmental bodies or agencies whose settlement agreements 

are subject to approval by legislative bodies, executive committees, boards of directors or the like shall be represented by a 

person or persons who occupy high executive positions in the party organization and who will be directly involved in the 

process of approval of any settlement offers or agreements. To the extent possible the representative shall have the 

authority, if he or she deems it appropriate, to settle the action on terms consistent with the opposing party’s most recent 

demand.

2

“Meaningful” means that the offer is reasonably calculated to settle the case on terms acceptable to the offering 

party. “Meaningful” does not include an offer which the offering party knows will not be acceptable to the other 

party. If the offering party is only willing to make an offer that he/she knows the other party will not accept, this should 

trigger a recognition the case is not in a settlement posture and the parties should confer about continuing or vacating the 

settlement conference via stipulation.

Case 1:15-cv-00673-WBS-BAM Document 24 Filed 08/14/15 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,

SHEPPARD, WAYTE &

CARRUTH LLP

7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO, CA 93720

fax or e-mail, with an acceptance of the offer or with a meaningful counteroffer, which includes a 

brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate. 

c. If settlement is not achieved, each party SHALL attach copies of their settlement offers 

to their Confidential Settlement Conference Statement, as described below. Copies of these 

documents shall not be filed on the court docket.

d. No later than August 24, 2015 at noon, the parties shall submit, directly to Judge 

Thurston’s chambers by e-mail to JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov, a Confidential Settlement 

Conference Statement. The statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on 

any other party, although the parties may file a Notice of Lodging of Settlement Conference 

Statement. Each statement shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date and time of the 

Settlement Conference indicated prominently thereon. The Confidential Settlement Conference 

Statement shall 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 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00673-WBS-BAM Document 24 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 3