(PC) Lake v. Oboyle

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01306
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARIUS DE’MON LAKE, No. 2:23-cv-1306 DJC AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 14 A. OBOYLE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. §1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. 19 Therefore, this case will be referred to a Magistrate Judge to conduct a settlement conference at 20 the California State Prison, Sacramento, 100 Prison Road, Represa, CA 95671 on July 28, 2025, 21 at 9:00 a.m. The court will issue any necessary transportation order in due course. 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before a federal Magistrate Judge on July 24 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. at California State Prison, Sacramento. 25 2. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the 26 Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The individual 27 with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the 28 settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose behind requiring the attendance of a 1 person with full settlement authority is that the parties’ view of the case may be altered during the 2 face-to-face conference. An authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can 3 be found not to comply with the requirement of full authority to settle1. 4 3. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than July 14, 5 2025, to spark@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement statement to 6 U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814 “Attn: Institution 7 Settlement Judge for July 28, 2025” so it arrives no later than July 14, 2025. The envelope shall 8 be marked “CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” Parties are also directed to file a 9 “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement.” See L.R. 270(d). 10 Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on any 11 other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date and time 12 of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. 13 The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed 14 or neatly printed, and include the following: 15 a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 16 b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon 17 which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of 18

19 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 20 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 21 to compel participation in mandatory settlement conference[s].”). The term “full authority to settle” means that the individuals attending the mediation conference must be authorized to fully 22 explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the 23 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). 24 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 25 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003), amended on recon. in part, Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 26 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- 27 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. 28 Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 596-97 (8th Cir. 2001). ] prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in 2 dispute. 3 c. summary of the proceedings to date. 4 d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, and 5 trial. 6 e. The relief sought. 7 f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 8 history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 9 g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 10 conference, including how much a party is willing to accept and/or willing to pay. 11 h. Ifthe parties intend to discuss the joint settlement of any other actions or claims 12 not in this suit, give a brief description of each action or claim as set forth above, 13 including case number(s) if applicable. 14 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a courtesy copy of this order on the 15 | Litigation Office at SAC via fax at (916) 294-3072 or via email. 16 | DATED: June 23, 2025 * 17 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28