(PC) Wilson v. Bucato

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 LUCIOUS WILSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00023-KES-HBK 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RESETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND PARAMETERS HUCKLEBERRY, Settlement Conference May 20, 2024 16 Defendants. 17

18 19 Plaintiff is a state prisoner is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights 20 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Court previously determined that this case would 21 benefit from a settlement conference. A settlement conference was subsequently set for April 18, 22 2024. The settlement conference had to be vacated due to plaintiff’s health and housing situation 23 and lack of access to property, to be continued to another date. The settlement conference will 24 be reset for May 20, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The 25 settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom 26 video conference. The Court will issue the necessary transportation order in due course. 27 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The settlement conference in this case is reset for May 20, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. before 2 Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The settlement conference will be conducted by 3 remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. 4 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 5 settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person1. Unless otherwise 6 permitted in advance by the Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at 7 the settlement conference. It is recommended that pertinent evidence to be offered at 8 trial, documents or otherwise, be brought to the settlement conference for presentation 9 to the settlement judge. Neither the settlement conference statements nor 10 communications during the settlement conference with the settlement judge can be 11 used by either party in the trial of this case. 12 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 13 The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in 14 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not 15 proceed and will be reset to another date. Absent permission from the Court, in 16 addition to counsel who will try the case being present, the individual parties shall also 17 be present. In the case of corporate parties, associations or other entities, and 18 insurance carriers, a representative executive with authority to discuss, consider, 19 propose and agree, or disagree, to any settlement proposal or offer shall also be 20 present. A representative with unlimited authority shall either attend in person or be 21

22 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 23 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 24 settlement conference[s].”). The term “full authority to settle” means that the individuals attending the mediation conference must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any 25 settlement terms acceptable to the 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). 26 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. 27 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 28 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 2 available by phone throughout the conference. In other words, having settlement 3 authority “up to a certain amount” is not acceptable. IF ANY PARTY BELIEVES 4 THAT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE FUTILE, THEN THAT 5 PARTY SHALL CONTACT THE COURT NOT LATER THAN SEVENTY- 8 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office 9 at Pelican Bay State Prison via facsimile at (707) 465-9099 or via email. 10 Dated: _ April 25, 2024 Mle fareh Zack 12 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 Copy to: Michelle Rooney:CRD 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28