Ramos-Quirarte v. Omandac

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 LUCIA RAMOS-QUIRARTE, Case No. 2:23-cv-01778-RFB-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), Order 10 v. [Docket No. 51] 11 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to continue the settlement conference and to 14 excuse the attendance requirement for all individually-named defendants. Docket No. 51. For the 15 reasons discussed below, the stipulation is GRANTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in 16 part. 17 I. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE CONTINUANCE 18 In light of the scheduling conflict identified, good cause exists to continue the settlement 19 conference. The settlement conference will be reset to 10:00 a.m. on June 11, 2025. Settlement 20 statements must be submitted to the undersigned’s box in the Clerk’s Office by 3:00 p.m. on June 21 4, 2025. All other requirements in the order setting the settlement conference (Docket No. 50) 22 remain unchanged. 23 II. ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT 24 Defendants also seek to excuse several individually-named defendants from participating 25 at the settlement conference. Defendants explain that other participants who will attend the 26 settlement conference will have full settlement authority. Docket No. 51 at 2. 27 Quite clearly, the need to have full settlement authority present during the settlement 28 conference is an important threshold requirement. E.g., Nick v. Morgan’s Food, Inc., 270 F.3d 1} 590, 597 (8th Cir. 2001). That is not the only reason for party attendance, though. A foundational 2|| aspect of a settlement conference is the evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses in the case. Cf 3] Local Rule 16-6(f)(1)(E). That evaluation includes the presiding judge’s assessment as to how 4! parties who are key fact witnesses will present at trial. See, e.g., HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. 5| Flamingo 316, LLC, 2019 WL 2358391, at *3 n.7 (D. Nev. June 4, 2019).! That evaluation may 6] also require in-depth discussion of the facts, which is not always limited to the information in the 7|| hands of counsel or high-level decisionmakers during the settlement conference. In the Court’s 8|| experience, obtaining full understanding of the facts may require input from the parties themselves during the settlement conference. 10 The request to excuse attendance of the individually-named defendants addresses only the 11] issue of settlement authority, and does not address whether excusing attendance will impair the 12} evaluation of the merits of the case for the reasons discussed above. 13} 1. CONCLUSION 14 Accordingly, the pending stipulation is GRANTED in part and DENIED without 15] prejudice in part. The stipulation is GRANTED as to resetting the settlement conference. The 16]| settlement conference will be reset to 10:00 a.m. on June 11, 2025. Settlement statements must be 17] submitted to the undersigned’s box in the Clerk’s Office by 3:00 p.m. on June 4, 2025. All other 18] requirements in the order setting the settlement conference (Docket No. 50) remain unchanged. 19} The stipulation is DENIED without prejudice as to the request to excuse attendance. Any renewed request to excuse attendance must include discussion of the issues identified above and must be 21|| filed by April 15, 2025. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: April 9, 2025 24 4 A 5 . Nancy J. Koppe 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26

' Plaintiff made a jury demand. Docket No. 1-1 at 2. Evaluating how parties will present 28] at trial is particularly significant in cases headed to jury trials.