Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02392/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02392-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

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

BEL AIR MART, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD CLEANERS, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-02392-MCE-EFB

ORDER

In September 2010, Plaintiffs Bel Air Mart (“Bel Air”) and Wong Family Investors, 

L.P. (“WFI”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this environmental cleanup action against 

numerous defendants. Plaintiffs seek recovery for property damage and cleanup costs 

caused by contamination from a dry cleaning facility. Defendants in this case include 

parties who allegedly owned and/or operated the Facility, or owned and/or operated the 

Property, for various periods of time from an uncertain date before the 1970s through 

about 2007.

Since the filing of this action, the parties have engaged in numerous settlement 

discussions, including mediations before Robert J. Kaplan with Judicate West in October 

2012 and before Lester Levy of JAMS in October 2013 and July 2014, in an attempt to 

resolve this matter. The parties now report that “[i]n light of the significant progress 

made to date, [they] have confidence that, given sufficient additional time to continue 

Case 2:10-cv-02392-MCE-EFB Document 285 Filed 09/22/14 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

their settlement discussions, a global settlement of this action would likely be achieved.” 

ECF No. 277.

On September 5, 2014, all parties who have appeared in this action, with the 

exception of Defendants Yolanda Panattoni and Ralph Armstrong, signed and submitted

to the Court a Stipulation and Request asking that the Court modify the Second

Amended Pretrial Order and that it set a mandatory settlement conference with mediator 

Lester Levy of JAMS. See ECF No. 277. On September 9, 2014, the Court granted the 

parties’ request in part and reset the new fact discovery cut off in this matter for 

November 10, 2014.1 See ECF No. 279. However, the Court deferred ruling on the 

parties’ request for a mandatory settlement conference and ordered that any party who 

did not join that request file either an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition within 

seven days. See id. Thereafter, Defendants Yolanda Panattoni and Ralph Armstrong, 

the two parties who have appeared in this action but who did not join the request, filed 

statements of non-opposition. See ECF No. 280, 283.2

Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the parties’ request for a mandatory 

settlement conference as proposed. See ECF Nos. 277, 284. Therefore, all parties, 

their counsel and their insurers are ORDERED to attend a mandatory settlement 

conference on September 24, 2014, before mediator Lester Levy of JAMS, in the event 

the parties have been unable to reach a global settlement by that date. Such parties are 

ORDERED to attend the settlement conference in person, with full settlement authority 

or be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms.

3

 The parties are reminded that 

 1 In its Minute Order, the Court adopted all of the parties’ proposed new scheduling deadlines 

(ECF No. 277 at 9-10), set the new fact discovery cutoff for November 10, 2014, and informed the parties 

that an amended scheduling order is forthcoming. See ECF No. 279. The parties are advised to 

scrupulously review the forthcoming amended scheduling order as the dates may be modified slightly due 

to other matters on the Court’s calendar.

2 As noted by the Requesting Parties, two remaining defendants, Melva Jo Kirby Armstrong and 

Claudine Babin-Armstrong, have been served but have not yet appeared or participated in this action in 

any way.

3 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 

Case 2:10-cv-02392-MCE-EFB Document 285 Filed 09/22/14 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

pursuant to Local Rule 160, when an action has been settled or otherwise resolved by 

agreement of the parties, it is the duty of counsel to immediately file a notice of 

settlement or resolution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2014

 1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2012) (“the district court has broad authority to compel participation in 

mandatory settlement conference[s].”). 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. 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 2:10-cv-02392-MCE-EFB Document 285 Filed 09/22/14 Page 3 of 3