Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02677/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02677-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald W. Harwood, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Avalon Care Center - Chandler, LLC,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2677 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Order Referring Case t o a Magistrate Judge for

Settlement Conference. See Doc. #19. Plaintiff asks the Court to Order the parties to

participate in a settlement conference. Defendant opposes the motion, stat ing that

“Defendant is not willing to participate in a settlement conference because, after an indep th investigation, there is no evidence supporting any of [Plaintiff’s] claims. It is

[D]efendant’s procedure not to make any offers in cases without merit . . . .” Doc. #20.

Federal Rule 16(a)(5) states that “the Court may in its discret ion direct the attorneys

for the part ies and any unrepresented parties to appear before it for a conference or

conferences before trial for such purposes as . . . facilitating t he settlement of the case.”

Rule 16(c)(9) states that t he Court may hold a pretrial conference to discuss “settlement

and the use of special p rocedures to assist in resolving the dispute . . . .” Federal courts

have held that these rules and a court’s inherent authority authorize a district court to

order p art ies to participate in settlement conferences and impose sanctions for failing to

do so. See, e.g., Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 1990); Heileman

Case 2:04-cv-02677-DGC Document 26 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 651-55 (7th Cir. 1989). Courts have also

held that the parties themselves, and not just their lawyers, may be required to attend and

participate in settlement conferences. Id.

Although a court may order parties to participate in a settlement conference, it may

not order t hem t o make a settlement offer. A district court cannot coerce settlement. Kothe

v. Smith, 771 F.2d 667, 669 (2n d Cir. 1985). Thus, where a party has made clear that it does

not intend to make a settlement offer, compelling a settlement conference may well be a

waste of t ime. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 16 state that “[t]he rule does not

make settlement conferences mandatory because they would be a waste of time in many

cases.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Committee’s Note (1983 Amendment). The Advisory

Commit t ee also observed that “it is not the purpose of [Rule 16] to impose settlement

negotiations on unwilling litigants . . . .” Id. 

Given Defendant’s refusal to make a settlement offer, the Court concludes that a

set t lement conference in this case would be a waste of the parties’ and the Court’s

resources. For this reason, the Court will not order that a settlement conference be held

before a magistrate judge.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s M ot ion for Order Referring Case to a Magistrate

Judge for Settlement Conference (Doc. #19) is denied.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02677-DGC Document 26 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 2