Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01898/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01898-22/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 

CHARLES T. DAVIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMERO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:05-cv-1898-JAM-EFB P 

ORDER SETTING 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel, in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case will be referred to Magistrate Judge 

Allison Claire to conduct a settlement conference at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #26 on October 30, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. In accordance 

with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 

October 30, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 

95814 in Courtroom #26. 

 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 

settlement on defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

 

 

1While 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 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JAM-EFB Document 135 Filed 07/24/14 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

 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. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement statement to Sujean Park, ADR 

Coordinator, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814 so they arrive no later than 

October 20, 2014 and file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement 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. 

 

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., 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 2:05-cv-01898-JAM-EFB Document 135 Filed 07/24/14 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

d. An 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: July 24, 2014. 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JAM-EFB Document 135 Filed 07/24/14 Page 3 of 3