Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02043/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02043-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brown
Defendant
John Havlin
Defendant
Darrell Williams
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-2043 JAM DAD P

vs.

JOHN HAVLIN, et al., ORDER SETTING

Defendants. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 26, 2012, the undersigned issued an order for the parties to inform the

court if they wished to proceed with a mandatory settlement conference before the undersigned

magistrate judge or have the case referred to the court’s mediation program. On July 16, 2012,

counsel for defendant Brown filed a waiver to have the undersigned preside over a settlement

conference in this case. However, plaintiff filed a motion to have the case referred to the court’s

mediation program. 

Good cause appearing, the undersigned will refer this case to the court’s

mediation program. Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison will conduct a settlement conference at

the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #2 on October

1

Case 2:10-cv-02043-JAM-DB Document 44 Filed 07/31/12 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

11, 2012 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 Craig M.

Kellison on October 11, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,

California 95814 in Courtroom #2.

2. Defense counsel and a person with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and

enter into a binding settlement on defendant’s 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. Plaintiff’s motion to have the case referred to the court’s mediation program

(Doc. No. 40) is granted.

DATED: July 30, 2012.

DAD:9

will2043.med

The term “full authority to settle” means that the individuals attending the settlement 1

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).

2

Case 2:10-cv-02043-JAM-DB Document 44 Filed 07/31/12 Page 2 of 2