Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01174/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01174-19/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE PULIDO,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

M. LUNES, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

Plaintiff Jose J. Pulido is appearing through counsel in this civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court determined that this case would benefit from a settlement 

conference and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on September 2, 2016 

to conduct a settlement conference. (Doc. 81). A settlement conference was set for October 6, 

2016, but was subsequently vacated due to the appointment of counsel for plaintiff for the 

limited purpose of assisting plaintiff prepare for and participate in a settlement conference. 

(Doc. 83). The settlement conference will now be set to occur at the U. S. District Court, 2500 

Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721 in Courtroom #9 on November 18, 2016 at 10:30 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 Stanley A. 

Boone on November 18, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare 

Street, Fresno, California 93721 in Courtroom #9.

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

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 90 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 3
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

binding settlement 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 the following email 

address: saborders@caed.uscourts.gov. Settlement statements shall arrive no later 

than November 10, 2016. Parties shall also file a Notice of Submission of 

Confidential Settlement Conference Statement (See Local Rule 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 Aconfidential@

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=

 

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 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 90 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 3
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

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 90 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 of 3