Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00642/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00642-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sean Hargrow, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Federal Express Corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-642-PHX-DGC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter arises on settlement conference ordered by Judge Edward C. Voss on June

30, 2006 pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(a)(5), 28 U.S.C. § 473(b)(5) and the referral by the trial

judge, the Hon. David G. Campbell, United States District Judge, on June 15, 2006. See

Settlement Conference Order and minute order (docs. #93 and #92 respectively). Plaintiff

Sean Hargrow was present and represented by Mishka Marshall and Defendant was

represented by Mary Beard. The settlement conference was ordered to begin on August 2,

2006 at 9:00 a.m. and was scheduled all day.

The court's Settlement Conference Order (doc. #93) provided in relevant part, who

was required to be present on behalf of Defendant:

A corporation, association, partnership, business entity, organization,

governmental agency, or political body shall appear through a

representative having binding settlement authority in addition to

counsel.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC Document 100 Filed 08/17/06 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 -

A United States magistrate judge has the authority to enter appropriate sanctions for

the violation of its settlement conference order. Pitman v. Brinker International, Inc., 2003

WL 23353478, 1 (D. Ariz. 2003) ("The Settlement Conference Order was clear, even

emphatic. It notes at the outset that it was "mandating" that the parties' settlement

representatives be physically present at the settlement conference, that 'availability by

telephone' would not suffice, and that the parties' authorized representatives could be excused

only 'by formal motion and Order issued prior to the subject settlement conference for good

cause shown.'"); Maisonville v. F2 America, Inc., 902 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1989) (Rule 11

sanctions are nondispositive and magistrate judge has authority to impose such sanctions),

cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1025, 111 S.Ct. 674, 112 L.Ed.2d 666 (1991); Grimes v. City and

County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991) ("We hold that magistrates may

impose prospective sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 where such sanctions are necessary to

enforce compliance with a valid discovery order. . . The district court did not err in affirming

the magistrate's $85,000 sanction of the City.").

The court addressed counsel for Defendant in private. The first question was "where

is the representative for Fed Ex with authority to settle the case." Ms. Beard advised that she

was in-house counsel and that she had full authority to settle the case. Settlement

commenced. Almost immediately, it became clear that Ms. Beard had only limited authority.

Her limit to settle the case was $15,000. Through the mediation process, Ms. Beard felt that

settlement in an amount beyond her authority should be considered. She initiated a lengthy

telephonic conference with counsel in Tennessee who was in a position to increase the

settlement authority. After several exchanges, including one in which the court was

involved, counsel in Tennessee declined to increase Ms. Beard's authority.

Clearly, Federal Express did not comply with the court's order requiring that "a

corporation. . . shall appear through a representative having binding settlement authority in

addition to counsel."

IT IS ORDERED setting an Order to Show Cause hearing for Federal Express

Corporation and attorney Mary Beard to physically appear before the undersigned on August

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC Document 100 Filed 08/17/06 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 -

22, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 304, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 W.

Washington St., Phoenix , Arizona and show cause why they, individually or collectively,

should not be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 16(f), Rule 37(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) and/or be

held in contempt of court pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. 401 for failing to comply with the

court's Settlement Conference Order (doc. #93). 

DATED this 17th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC Document 100 Filed 08/17/06 Page 3 of 3