Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00427/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00427-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Antonio Falcon
Plaintiff
M. Farley
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

JUAN ANTONIO FALCON,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. FARLEY, 

Defendant.

1:11-cv-00427-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff, Juan Antonio Falcon, is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 27, 2015, parties were required to notify the court 

whether a settlement conference would be beneficial. (Doc. 38) After a review of the parties’ 

responses, the court has determined that this case would benefit from a settlement conference. 

Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison to conduct a 

settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in 

Courtroom #4 on October 22, 2015 at 1:00 p.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 Craig M. Kellison 

on October 22, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, 

Case 1:11-cv-00427-LJO-JLT Document 42 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 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

2

California 95814 in Courtroom #4.

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. Judge Kellison or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties 

either by telephone or in person, approximately one week prior to the settlement 

conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

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 1:11-cv-00427-LJO-JLT Document 42 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 2