Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01563-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonel Hernandez
Plaintiff
J. Welch
Defendant

Document Text:

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

LEONEL HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WELCH,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO

ORDER RESETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

February 12, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. before 

Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean

Plaintiff Leonel Hernandez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Court previously set a settlement conference in this case 

for December 10, 2024. Plaintiff did not appear,1and the settlement conference was not held. 

The settlement conference in this case will now be reset for February 12, 2025, at 1:00 

p.m. before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The settlement conference will be conducted by 

remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. The Court will issue the 

necessary transportation order in due course. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The settlement conference in this case is reset for February 12, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.

before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The settlement conference will be 

1 Plaintiff was unable to appear due to multiple emergencies occurring on that date at California State 

Prison, Lancaster, his previous housing institution. (See Doc. 35.) 

Case 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/14/25 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

conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. 

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

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person2. Unless otherwise 

permitted in advance by the Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at 

the settlement conference. It is recommended that pertinent evidence to be offered at 

trial, documents or otherwise, be brought to the settlement conference for presentation 

to the settlement judge. Neither the settlement conference statements nor 

communications during the settlement conference with the settlement judge can be 

used by either party in the trial of this case.

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. Absent permission from the Court, in 

addition to counsel who will try the case being present, the individual parties shall also 

be present. In the case of corporate parties, associations or other entities, and 

insurance carriers, a representative executive with authority to discuss, consider, 

propose and agree, or disagree, to any settlement proposal or offer shall also be 

present. A representative with unlimited authority shall either attend in person or be 

available by phone throughout the conference. In other words, having settlement 

authority “up to a certain amount” is not acceptable. IF ANY PARTY BELIEVES 

2 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 

“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. Pitman 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 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/14/25 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

THAT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE FUTILE, THEN THAT 

PARTY SHALL CONTACT THE COURT NOT LATER THAN SEVENTYTWO HOURS PRECEDING THE SCHEDULED SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office 

at Kern Valley State Prison via facsimile at (661) 720-4949 or via email.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/14/25 Page 3 of 3