Chen v. Allied Waste Systems, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFF, QIHAI CHEN on behalf of Case No.: 3:22-cv-00099-JO-VET himself and a class of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 MOTION TO CONTINUE Plaintiffs, JANUARY 3, 2024 MANDATORY v. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND 15 SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.; CONFERENCE REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; DOES 1- 50, inclusive, 17 Doc. No. 96 Defendants.

20 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue January 3, 2024 Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) (“Joint Motion”). Doc. No. 96. Given a pending motion for class certification, set for hearing on January 3, 2024, the parties seek a continuance of the MSC and setting of a case management conference (“CMC”) immediately following the MSC if the case does not resolve. Id. at 2. Based on a review of the record, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. The Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The MSC currently set for January 3, 2024 is hereby VACATED and RESET for an in-person MSC on Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 10:00 AM at James M.

3 Carter and Judith N. Keep U.S. Courthouse, 333 West Broadway, 10th Floor, San Diego, CA 92101.1 2. If the case does not settle during the MSC, the Court will immediately proceed with a CMC. No later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the scheduled MSC/CMC, the parties shall file a joint proposed schedule with proposed deadlines for expert disclosures, expert discovery, pretrial motions, and the pretrial conference.

9 3. The following are mandatory procedures to be followed in preparation for the MSC. Absent express permission from this Court, counsel must timely comply with the dates and deadlines herein. Questions regarding the MSC or the mandatory guidelines set forth herein may be directed to Judge Torres’ Chambers at (619) 557-6384.

13 a. Full Settlement Authority Required. Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1.c.1, all parties, party representatives, including claims adjusters for insured parties, and the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation must participate in the MSC.2 This appearance must be made with full and complete authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement.3 Counsel may request the MSC/CMC be converted to a videoconference through a joint call or email to Judge Torres’ Chambers ([email protected]). Counsel 21 must meet and confer prior to contacting Chambers and be prepared to explain the circumstances supporting the request.

2 The attendance requirement includes parties that are indemnified by others. Any deviation from this Order requires prior Court approval.

24 3 Full authority to settle means that the individuals at the MSC are authorized to fully 25 explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). Party participants need to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to 27 change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-486 (D. Ariz. 2003). One of the purposes of requiring a person with complete 1 b. Confidential Settlement Brief. No later than seven (7) calendar days before ||the MSC, each party must lodge a Confidential Settlement Brief by email to |/[email protected]. The Confidential Settlement Brief should not exceed ten ||(10) pages, excluding exhibits, and must be formatted according to the requirements of Local Rule 5.1(a). Parties attaching exhibits must attach only the relevant pages of multi- || page exhibits and must highlight the relevant portions.

7 C. Contents of Settlement Brief. All Confidential Settlement Briefs shall |jinclude the content specified in the Court’s Chambers Rules, available at || https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/torres/docs/Civil%20Chambers%20Rules.pdf.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: December 22, 2023 12 [wre cK 13 Honorable Valerie E. Torres 14 United States Magistrate Judge 17 be altered during the face-to-face conference. /d. at 486. Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595-597 (8th 28 Cir. 2001).