Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02070/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02070-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victory Ilsung
Plaintiff
Robert Mobert
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORY ILSUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT MOBERT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:10-cv-02070-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement 

conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman 

for the Court’s Settlement Week program to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. 

District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on June 5, 

2015 at 9:00 a.m.

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

concurrently with this order.

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

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall 

J. Newman on June 5, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I 

Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.

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

Case 1:10-cv-02070-AWI-MJS Document 76 Filed 04/09/15 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

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. Parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven 

days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall 

simultaneously be delivered to the court using the following email address: 

kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his non-confidential 

settlement statement to arrive not less than seven days prior to the settlement 

conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC 

CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall 

be marked “Settlement Statement.” If a party desires to share additional 

confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the 

provisions of Local rule 270(d) and (e).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

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 “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 1:10-cv-02070-AWI-MJS Document 76 Filed 04/09/15 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

Case 1:10-cv-02070-AWI-MJS Document 76 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 3