Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03105/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03105-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

TIFFANY WAGNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF PLUMAS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-03105-KJM-DB

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. 

Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney for the court’s 

Settlement Week program to conduct a settlement conference on May 24, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. The 

settlement conference will be conducted via the Zoom videoconferencing application. 

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

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. 

Delaney on May 24, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. The settlement conference will be conducted 

via the Zoom videoconferencing application. 

2. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the 

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

individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and 

Case 2:18-cv-03105-KJM-DB Document 53 Filed 03/16/21 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

authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. 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. 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 settle1.

3. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than May 17, 

2021 to ckdorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of 

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

DATED: March 16, 2021 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 2:18-cv-03105-KJM-DB Document 53 Filed 03/16/21 Page 2 of 2