Novalk, LLC v. Evanston Insurance Company

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJanuary 11, 2023
Docket3:22-cv-01789
StatusUnknown

This text of Novalk, LLC v. Evanston Insurance Company (Novalk, LLC v. Evanston Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Novalk, LLC v. Evanston Insurance Company, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NOVALK, LLC, Case No.: 22cv1789-JO(LR)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) SETTING FOLLOW-UP 14 EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE et al., 15 Defendants. AND 16

17 (2) RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 18 19 20 On January 11, 2023, the Court conducted a video Early Neutral Evaluation 21 Conference via Zoom. Pursuant to the discussions with the parties, the Court SETS a 22 follow-up Settlement Conference (“SC”) via video conference for February 21, 2023, at 23 9:30 a.m. Additionally, the Court RESETS the Zoom Case Management Conference, 24 previously scheduled for January 11, 2023, for February 21, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. 25 The following rules and deadlines apply with respect to the SC: 26 1. Appearance via Videoconference Required: All named parties (including 27 those who are indemnified by others), party representatives, including claims adjusters 28 for insured defendants, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, 1 must participate in the video conference, and be legally and factually prepared to discuss 2 and resolve the case. Counsel appearing without their clients will be cause for immediate 3 imposition of sanctions and may also result in the immediate termination of the 4 conference. 5 2. Full Settlement Authority Required: A party or party representative with full 6 settlement authority1 must be present at the conference. A person who needs to call 7 another person who is not present on the videoconference before agreeing to any 8 settlement does not have full settlement authority. Retained outside corporate counsel 9 shall not appear on behalf of a corporation as the party representative who has the 10 authority to negotiate and enter into a settlement. Counsel for government entity is 11 excused from this requirement if the government counsel who participates in the SC 12 (1) has primary responsibility for handling the case, and (2) may negotiate settlement 13 offers that the attorney is willing to recommend to the government official having 14 ultimate settlement authority. 15 3. Prior to the start of the SC, the Court will e-mail each SC participant an 16 invitation to join a Zoom video conference. If possible, participants are encouraged to 17 use laptops or desktop computers for the video conference, as mobile devices often offer 18 inferior performance. Participants shall join the video conference by following the 19 ZoomGov Meeting hyperlink in the invitation. Participants who do not have Zoom 20 already installed on their device when they click on the ZoomGov Meeting 21 hyperlink will be prompted to download and install Zoom before proceeding. Zoom 22 may then prompt participants to enter the password included in the invitation. All 23 participants will be placed in a waiting room until the SC begins. 24 25 1 “Full settlement authority” means that a person is authorized to fully explore settlement options and to 26 agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and 27 authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). Limited or a sum certain authority is not adequate. See Nick v. Morgan’s 28 1 4. Each participant should plan to join the Zoom video conference at least ten 2 ||minutes before the start of the SC to ensure that the SC begins promptly at 9:30 a.m. 3 || The Zoom e-mail invitation may indicate an earlier start time, but the SC will begin 4 || at the Court-scheduled time. 5 5. No later than February 14, 2023, counsel for each party shall send an e-mail to 6 || the Court at efile_rodriguez @casd.uscourts.gov containing the following: 7 a. The name and title of each participant, including all parties and 8 || party representatives with full settlement authority, claims adjusters for insured 9 || defendants, and the primary attorney(s) responsible for the litigation; 10 b. An e-mail address for each participant to receive the Zoom video 11 ||conference invitation; and 12 c. A telephone number where each participant may be reached so that 13 technical difficulties arise, the Court will be able to proceed telephonically instead of 14 || by video conference. (If counsel prefers all participants of their party on a single 15 ||conference call, counsel may provide a conference number and appropriate call-in 16 ||information, including an access code, where all counsel and parties or party 17 ||representatives for that side may be reached as an alternative to providing individual 18 || telephone numbers for each participant.) 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: January 11, 2023 21 LY 22 Honorable Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. 74 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28

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

Related

Pitman v. Brinker International, Inc.
216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Arizona, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Novalk, LLC v. Evanston Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/novalk-llc-v-evanston-insurance-company-casd-2023.