Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01538/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01538-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

John R. Curtis,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Century Surety Company an Ohio

Corporation,

Defendant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1538-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On August 10, 2007, the Hon. Roslyn O. Silver, this case’s assigned

District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for purposes of conducting a

settlement conference. (docket # 67) Both sides timely provided the undersigned with

settlement conference memoranda which, as instructed, were not filed with the Clerk.

Yesterday, November 5, 2007, the undersigned conducted an off-the-record a settlement

conference. A voluntary settlement was not reached. Plaintiff, an attorney, was pro se.

Defendant was represented by counsel, David Seldon. Also present was Tim Woods,

Vice-President of Claims of Defendant’s Phoenix office.

Today, the undersigned’s chambers received a faxed letter from Plaintiff

John R. Curtis, requesting sanctions be imposed upon “Defendants” because “they were

untruthful about receiving [Plaintiff’s] settlement demand which was sent to them on

9/27/07, Mr. Woods had not read [Plaintiff’s settlement conference] memorandum and

Case 2:05-cv-01538-ROS Document 76 Filed 11/06/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 Summary judgment has been entered in favor of Defendant on all Plaintiff’s claims.

(docket # 39) Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, docket # 73, and Defendant’s counterclaim

for alleged breach of contract for Plaintiff’s alleged refusal to return documents to Defendant,

Plaintiff’s former employer, are the only known issues pending.

- 2 -

Mr. Woods had no settlement authority.” (Exhibit 1) A copy of Plaintiff’s letter was

purportedly mailed to defense counsel. The Court will construe Plaintiff’s November 6,

2007 letter as a motion for sanctions.

While it is true that Mr. Woods acknowledged to the Court that defense

counsel failed to provide him a copy of Plaintiff’s settlement conference memoranda for

review prior to the settlement conference as directed by the Settlement Conference Order,

there was no prejudice to Plaintiff because Mr. Woods was instructed to read it while the

Court was conducting a private caucus with Plaintiff in another room. The Court believes

that he did. Additionally, whether defense counsel was truthful about not receiving

Plaintiff’s settlement demand on September 27, 2007, five weeks before the settlement

conference, is a non-material, collateral issue. There are several reasons other than

defense counsel’s verity why he may not have received Plaintiff’s settlement demand so

far in advance of the settlement conference despite the Court’s express directive in the

Settlement Conference Order. Again, there was no prejudice to Plaintiff when exactly

defense counsel received Plaintiff’s pre-settlement conference offer to settle because, in

light of the present posture of the case,1

 Defendant is entitled to remain inflexible in its

current settlement position. 

Finally, there is no evidence to support Plaintiff’s speculative claim that Mr.

Woods attended the settlement conference with “no settlement authority.” At the

beginning of the settlement conference, Mr. Woods represented to the Court that he was

the person at Century Surety Company that had the “full and complete authority” to settle

this case as defined in the Settlement Conference Order. If a party refuses to accept an

adverse party’s offer to settle, no matter how reasonable it may appear, sanctions against

that party for not paying the demand are not appropriate. While a court might be

Case 2:05-cv-01538-ROS Document 76 Filed 11/06/07 Page 2 of 4
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 -

warranted in considering sanctions for a party’s failure to notify the Court in advance of a

settlement conference that going forward with the settlement conference would be a futile

effort resulting in a waste of everyone’s time, result in unnecessary attorneys’ fees and

inconsistent with Rule 1, FED. R. CIV. P., such a sanction in this case is inappropriate

because of the pro se nature of one of the parties. 

Although the law favors the voluntary settlement of civil suits, ABKCO

Music, Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 722 F.2d 988, 997 (2d Cir. 1983), it does not

sanction efforts by trial judges to effect settlements through coercion. Del Rio v. Northern

Blower Co., 574 F.2d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 1978) (citing Wolff v. Laverne, Inc., 17 A.D.2d 213,

233 N.Y.S.2d 555 (1962)). In the Wolff case, cited with approval in Del Rio, supra, the

Court said:

We view with disfavor all pressure tactics whether directly or

obliquely, to coerce settlement by litigants and their counsel. Failure

to concur in what the Justice presiding may consider an adequate

settlement should not result in an imposition upon a litigant or his

counsel, who reject it, of any retributive sanctions not specifically

authorized by law.

17 A.D.2d at 215, 233 N.Y.S.2d at 557. In short, pressure tactics to coerce settlement

simply are not permissible. Schunk v. Schunk, 84 A.D.2d 904, 905, 446 N.Y.S.2d 672

(1981); Chomski v. Alston Cab Co., 32 A.D.2d 627, 299 N.Y.S.2d 896 (1969). “The judge

must not compel agreement by arbitrary use of his power and the attorney must not

meekly submit to a judge’s suggestion, though it be strongly urged.” Brooks v. Great

Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 92 F.2d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1937).

Federal Rule 16(c)(9), FED.R.CIV.P., expressly authorizes civil settlement

conferences but it “was not designed as a means for clubbing the parties-or one of

them-into an involuntary compromise.” Kothe v. Smith, 771 F.2d 667, 669 (2nd Cir.

1985). The purpose of Rule 16, FED.R.CIV.P., is not “to impose settlement negotiations

on unwilling litigants.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 Advisory Committee's Notes; In re Novak, 932

F.2d 1397, 1405 n. 15 (11th Cir. 1991).

Accordingly,

Case 2:05-cv-01538-ROS Document 76 Filed 11/06/07 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s November 6, 2007 letter shall be filed as

Exhibit 1 to this Order.

DATED this 6th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01538-ROS Document 76 Filed 11/06/07 Page 4 of 4