Cox Airparts LLC v. Brown

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedNovember 15, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-01466
StatusUnknown

This text of Cox Airparts LLC v. Brown (Cox Airparts LLC v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cox Airparts LLC v. Brown, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Cox Airparts LLC, No. CV-23-1466-PHX-SMB

10 Plaintiff, NOTICE AND ORDER FOR 11 v. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

12 Kevin Brown, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine to 16 conduct a Settlement Conference. 17 ALL PARTIES MUST READ AND COMPLY WITH 18 THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THIS ORDER 19 The purpose of the Settlement Conference is to facilitate voluntary settlement of the 20 case. The Settlement Conference will be conducted in a manner that will not prejudice any 21 party in the event a settlement is not reached. Rule 408, Federal Rules of Evidence, applies 22 to all aspects of the Settlement Conference. All communications and information 23 exchanged (including Settlement Conference Memoranda) in and during the settlement 24 conference process is not otherwise discoverable, will not be admissible in evidence for 25 any purpose, and shall not be used for any purpose outside the Settlement Conference itself. 26 At the conclusion of the Settlement Conference, all documents submitted and exchanged 27 by the parties shall be returned, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of in the manner directed 28 by the Settlement Judge upon the request of any party. Although the Court recognizes that 1 there are exceptions to the confidentiality of the communications referenced above,1 a party 2 must seek permission from the Court in advance before dissemination of such confidences. 3 There shall be no recording by any means (not by video, audio, or photo) of the settlement 4 conference or any portion thereof without express prior Court permission. 5 This Order mandating the parties’ corporate representatives’ and insurers’, if any, 6 appearance is intended to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Settlement 7 Conference by reducing the time for communication of offers, expanding the ability to 8 explore the varied options for settlement, giving the adverse parties the opportunity to hear 9 the rationale and arguments regarding the likelihood of success of the claims/defenses 10 directly from the lawyers who will be trying the case, meeting the litigants themselves, and 11 hearing first-hand the candid comments, if any, made by the Settlement Judge about the 12 case and/or the judicial process. The appearance of those individuals with the authority to 13 settle cases substantially increases the likelihood of settlement and leads to more 14 meaningful negotiations. 15 Consequently, pursuant to the authority granted to the Court in, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. 16 § 473(b)(5) and Rule 16(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., the parties and representatives of the parties 17 with “full and complete authority”2 to discuss settlement of the case SHALL appear at the 18 date and time of the Settlement Conference unless expressly excused by the undersigned 19 by timely motion and order issued prior to the subject Settlement Conference for good 20 cause shown. In re Novak, 932 F.2d 1397, 1407 (11th Cir. 1991) (concluding that district 21 courts have inherent power to direct parties to produce individuals with full settlement 22 authority at pretrial settlement conferences). 23 24 1 See Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 2011). 25 2 “Full and complete authority” within this Order means that the individual appearing for, 26 or on behalf of, the Defendants has the express authority and discretion to authorize the payment to, or accept the terms of, Plaintiff’s last settlement demand. “Full and complete 27 authority” does not mean, however, that Defendants or representative are required to pay such demand or any sum whatsoever. Kothe v. Smith, 771 F.2d 667, 669 (2d Cir. 1985) 28 (Rule 16 “was not designed as a means for clubbing the parties-or one of them-into an involuntary compromise.”); In re Novak, 932 F.2d at 1406 n. 18. 1 IT IS ORDERED: 2 1. Telephonic Status Conference is set on Monday, February 5, 2024, at 11:30 3 a.m. before United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine. Counsel will receive dial- 4 in instructions via separate electronic communication. Counsel who will participate in 5 the Settlement Conference shall participate in the Telephonic Status Conference, which the 6 Court usually conducts on the record. 7 At the Telephonic Status Conference, the Court will discuss the manner in which 8 this Magistrate Judge conducts Settlement Conferences. Requests to excuse a party from 9 appearance at the Settlement Conference may be made at or before the Telephonic Status 10 Conference. Requests for additional persons (besides counsel of record and named parties) 11 to attend the Settlement Conference shall be made at the Telephonic Status Conference. 12 Requests for attending only part of the settlement conference will rarely be granted and 13 shall be made at the Telephonic Status Conference. It is preferable if counsel discuss 14 attendance matters with each other in advance of the Telephonic Status Conference. 15 2. All parties and their counsel of record who are responsible for the case 16 SHALL appear before the undersigned Settlement Judge via video-teleconference 17 “hosted” by the Court on Thursday, February 22, 2024, at 1:15 p.m. 18 3. All participants shall participate in a manner and from a location where 19 communications cannot be heard by non-participants. 20 4. There shall be no recording by any means (not by video, audio, or photo) of 21 the settlement conference or any portion thereof without express prior Court permission. 22 5. If any participant is not fluent in English, a professional interpreter must be 23 retained by the participant or the participant’s counsel and used by the participant 24 throughout the settlement conference. The Court will not provide or pay for an interpreter. 25 A bilingual friend, family member, or staff-member of counsel’s office is not sufficient. 26 6. If the Defendants are an insured party, a representative of that party’s insurer, 27 with full and complete authority to discuss and settle the case, SHALL appear at aforesaid 28 date and time. An uninsured or self-insured corporate party SHALL appear at aforesaid 1 Settlement Conference through its authorized representative with full and complete 2 authority to discuss and settle the case. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485- 3 86 (D. Ariz. 2003), amended by 2003 WL 23353478 (D. Ariz. Oct. 3, 2003); Nick v. 4 Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001) (district judge acted well within his 5 discretion by imposing a monetary fine payable to the Clerk of the District Court as a 6 sanction for failing to prepare requested memorandum and deciding to send a corporate 7 representative to ADR conference with limited authority); Lockhart v. Patel, 115 F.R.D. 8 44 (E.D. Ky. 1987) (in medical malpractice action, answer stricken for failure of insurance 9 representative with authority to settle to appear at settlement conference). 10 7. Settlement conferences are often unproductive unless the parties have 11 exchanged settlement demands and compromise offers before the conference and have 12 made a serious effort to settle the case on their own. Accordingly, before arriving at the 13 Settlement Conference, the parties shall make good faith efforts to settle the case without 14 the involvement of the Court. 15 8.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cox Airparts LLC v. Brown, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-airparts-llc-v-brown-azd-2023.