Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00033/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00033-10/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY JONES, No. 2:10-CV-0033-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff,

vs.

E. McATEE, et. al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This case

will be referred to Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd to conduct a settlement conference on

February 28, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom #27. Plaintiff is to appear by video conference

from his place of incarceration. 

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue 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 Dale A.

Drozd on February 28, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, in

Courtroom #27. Plaintiff shall appear by video conference from his place of detention.

2. Defendants’ lead counsel and a person with full and unlimited authority to

negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on defendants’ behalf shall attend in person. 

1

While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district 1

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

1

Case 2:10-cv-00033-MCE-CMK Document 72 Filed 12/06/12 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

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. At least 21 days before the settlement conference, Plaintiff SHALL submit to

Defendant by mail, a written itemization of damages and a meaningful settlement demand which

includes a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate, not to exceed ten pages in

length. Thereafter, no later than 14 days before the settlement conference, Defendant SHALL

respond, by telephone or in person, with an acceptance of the offer or with a meaningful

counteroffer which includes a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate. If a

settlement is reached, defense counsel is to immediately contact the chambers of Judge Drozd

and file a Notice of Settlement.

5. If settlement is not informally achieved, each party SHALL provide a

confidential settlement conference statement to the following email address:

dadorders@caed.uscourts.gov so they arrive no later than February 21, 2013. Plaintiff shall

mail his confidential settlement conference statement to Sujean Park, ADR Coordinator, 501 I

Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814, so it arrives no later than February 21,

Northern Mariana Islands, _F.3d_, 2012 WL 3984406 at *1, *4 (9 Cir. Sept. 12, 2012)(“the th

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 (7 Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official Airline Guides, Inc. th

v. Goss, 6 F. 3d 1385, 1396 (9 Cir. 1993). The individual with full authority to settle must th

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

(8 Cir. 2001). th

2

Case 2:10-cv-00033-MCE-CMK Document 72 Filed 12/06/12 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

2013. Parties are to file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference

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.

d A specific dollar 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: December 5, 2012

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:10-cv-00033-MCE-CMK Document 72 Filed 12/06/12 Page 3 of 3