Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02598/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02598-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JENNIFER LANDEROS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAMUEL SCHAFER et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-02598-KJM-CKD

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiffs are proceeding through counsel in this federal civil rights action filed pursuant to

42 U.S.C. §1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement 

conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota to conduct a 

settlement conference on May 13, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. The settlement conference will be conducted 

by remote means. Parties will be required to appear by video conference.

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

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota

on May 13, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote 

means and parties are required to appear by video conference. The court will provide 

video conference connection instructions separately at a later date. 

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

Case 2:17-cv-02598-WBS-CKD Document 25 Filed 04/22/20 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

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person1.

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. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than May 6, 

2020 to dmcorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Parties are also directed to 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 

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.

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 2:17-cv-02598-WBS-CKD Document 25 Filed 04/22/20 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

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, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay.

h. If the parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims 

not in this suit, give a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, 

including case number(s) if applicable.

Dated: April 22, 2020

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:17-cv-02598-WBS-CKD Document 25 Filed 04/22/20 Page 3 of 3