(PC) Hawkins v. Urias

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LEON HAWKINS, Case No. 1:23-CV-000170-NODJ-HBK 10 Plaintiff, ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFEFENCE FOR February 28, 2024, 11 v. AT 1:00 P.M.

12 C. URIAS, 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court determines that this case will benefit from a settlement conference as no party has opted out by January 5, 2024 deadline. (See Doc. No. 21).

18 Therefore, this case is referred to Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean to conduct a settlement conference, which is scheduled to occur on February 28, 2024, at 1:00 p.m.

20 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 21 1. A settlement conference is scheduled to occur on February 28, 2024 at 1:00 p.m., 22 before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The conference shall be conducted via 23 Zoom videoconference and shall last up to three hours.

24 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 25 settlement agreement shall attend.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].”).

28 The term “full authority to settle” means that the individuals attending the mediation conference must be authorized 1 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses, and damages at 2 issue in the case. The failure of any counsel, party, or authorized person subject to this 3 order to appear may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference 4 will not proceed and will be reset to another date.

5 4. Defendants shall provide a confidential settlement statement no later than February 6 21, 2024, to the following email address: [email protected]. Plaintiff 7 shall mail his confidential settlement statement, clearly captioned “Confidential 8 Settlement Conference Statement,” Attn: Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean, United 9 States District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501, Fresno, CA 93721 so that it 10 arrives no later than February 21, 2024. Parties shall also file a Notice of Submission 11 of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement (see Local Rule 270(d)).

12 5. Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of Court nor served on any 13 other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the 14 date and time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.

15 6. The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, 16 typed or neatly printed, and include the following: 17 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.

18 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon 19 which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of 20 prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in 21 dispute.

22 c. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and 23 trial.

to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. G.

25 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).

1 d. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 2 history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

3 e. A brief statement of the party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 4 conference, including how much the party is willing to accept and/or willing to 5 pay.

6 f. Ifthe parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims 7 not in this suit, a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, 8 including case number(s) if applicable.

9 7. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office at 10 California State Prison, Corcoran. | Dated: _ January 9, 2024 Wile. Th fareh Zack 13 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 Cc: Michelle Rooney, CRD