Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01158/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01158-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE ACTIVE NETWORK, INC. v. ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC. No. 10-CV-1158-BEN(WVG)

HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO CT. DEPUTY J. YAHL RPTR. 

Attorneys

Plaintiffs Defendants

 

The settlement conference currently on calendar for February 4, 2011, at 9 a.m.

is VACATED and rescheduled to March 9, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. Briefs are due as set

forth in the Court’s original scheduling order.

All parties or their representatives who have full authority to enter into a

binding settlement, in addition to the attorneys participating in the

litigation, shall be present at the conference.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims

adjusters for insured defendants with full and unlimited authority to negotiate

and enter into a binding settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s)

responsible for the litigation, must be present and legally and factually

prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the mandatory settlement conference.

Retained outside corporate counsel shall not appear on behalf of a corporation

as the party who has the authority to negotiate and enter into a settlement. 

"Full authority to settle" means that the individuals at the settlement

conference must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree

at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman

Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989). The person

needs to have "unfettered discretion and authority" to change the settlement

position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Intl., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D.

Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement

authority to attend the conference includes that the person's view of the case

may be altered during the face to face conference. Id. at 486. A limited or

a sum certain of authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan's Foods, Inc., 270

F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 24, 2011

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01158-BEN-WVG Document 51 Filed 01/24/11 Page 1 of 1