Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250-32/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Anderson
Defendant
Sylester Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Sylester Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This case is currently set for jury trial on August 25, 2015, before the undersigned. 

The parties have expressed a willingness to engage in a settlement conference. Therefore, this 

case is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng to conduct a settlement conference 

at the U. S. District Court, Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse located at 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, 

CA, in Courtroom #6 on July 30, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. 

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with this 

order.

In accordance with the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follow:

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before United States Magistrate Judge Michael

J. Seng on July 30, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, Robert E. Coyle Federal 

SYLESTER WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT R. ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01250-SAB (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Date: 07/30/2015

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Place: Courtroom 6

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 140 Filed 07/13/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Courthouse located at 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA, in Courtroom #6 on July 30, 2015, 

at 10:00 a.m. 

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

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

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. The parties are requested to send Judge Seng a settlement conference statement on or 

before July 23, 2015, so that he may ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement 

conference.

5. The settlement conference statements shall address whether there have been any previous 

settlement negotiations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 While 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 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 Afull 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 by 

Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F. 3d 1385, 1396 (9th Cir. 1993). The individual with full 

authority to settle must also have Aunfettered 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., No. CV02-1886PHX DGC, 2003 WL 

23353478, at *3 (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 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 140 Filed 07/13/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 140 Filed 07/13/15 Page 3 of 3