Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01171/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01171-36/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CORNELIUS JAMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEEPAK MEHTA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-1171 LKK DAD P

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in a civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have requested that this case be referred to the Court’s Prisoner 

Settlement Program for mediation with Magistrate Judge Kellison. Good cause appearing, this 

case will be set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison at the U.S. 

District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #1 on June 19, 2014 at 

10:00 a.m.

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with 

this order.

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

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison 

on June 19, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, 

California 95814 in Courtroom #1.

Case 2:10-cv-01171-KJM-DAD Document 241 Filed 05/13/14 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

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

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

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

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. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement statement to Sujean Park, ADR 

Division, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814, or by email to 

spark@caed.uscourts.gov so they arrive no later than June 5, 2014 and file a Notice of 

Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement (See L.R. 270(d)). Settlement 

statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the 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. 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 

 

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 

nd 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-01171-KJM-DAD Document 241 Filed 05/13/14 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

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.

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

conference.

Dated: May 12, 2014

DAD:9

jame1171.sc

Case 2:10-cv-01171-KJM-DAD Document 241 Filed 05/13/14 Page 3 of 3