Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01386/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01386-2/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

ADRIAN EUGENE MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1386 MCE DAD P

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action 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 Kendall J. 

Newman for the Court’s Settlement Week program to conduct a settlement conference at the U.S. 

District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on June 3, 2015 at 

9:00 a.m. 

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

1. A settlement conference has been set for June 3, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom #25

before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California 95814.

Case 2:13-cv-01386-MCE-DAD Document 62 Filed 04/02/15 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. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days 

prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered 

to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff 

may mail his non-confidential settlement statement to arrive not less than seven days 

prior to the settlement conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, 

USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall 

be marked “Settlement Statement.” If a party desires to share additional confidential 

/////

/////

/////

 

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. 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., No. CV 02-1886 PHX DGC, 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 2:13-cv-01386-MCE-DAD Document 62 Filed 04/02/15 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

information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 

270(d) and (e). 

Dated: April 2, 2015

/moor1386.med

Case 2:13-cv-01386-MCE-DAD Document 62 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 3