Sexton v. Mitratech Holdings, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedMarch 14, 2025
Docket3:23-cv-00375
StatusUnknown

This text of Sexton v. Mitratech Holdings, Inc. (Sexton v. Mitratech Holdings, Inc.) 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
Sexton v. Mitratech Holdings, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN SEXTON, Case No.: 23-cv-00375-W-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MANDATORY 13 v. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 14 MITRATECH, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 On July 19, 2024, a Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) was scheduled in 20 this matter for April 2, 2025, at 9:30 AM before the Honorable D. Thomas Ferraro. (ECF 21 No. 39.) On January 14, 2025, this case was transferred to the calendar of the Honorable 22 Jill L. Burkhardt. (ECF No. 61.) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 23 1. The MSC remains set for April 2, 2025, but will begin at 9:00 AM. 24 2. The MSC shall be held by video conference. Mandatory directions for 25 participating in the MSC by video conference are attached hereto. 26 3. The purpose of the MSC is to permit an informal, candid discussion between 27 the attorneys, parties, and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to 28 achieve a mediated resolution of the case. All MSC discussions will be off the record, 1 privileged, and confidential. See CivLR 16.3.h. 2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for 3 insured defendants with full and unlimited authority1 to negotiate and enter into a binding 4 settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present 5 and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the MSC. In the case 6 of an entity, an authorized representative of the entity who is not retained outside counsel 7 must be present and must have discretionary authority to commit the entity to pay an 8 amount up to the amount of the Plaintiff’s prayer (excluding punitive damages prayers). 9 The purpose of this requirement is to have representatives present who can settle the case 10 during the course of the conference without consulting a superior. 11 Counsel for a United States government entity may be excused from this 12 requirement so long as the government attorney who attends the MSC conference (1) has 13 primary responsibility for handling the case, and (2) may negotiate settlement offers which 14 the attorney is willing to recommend to the government official having ultimate settlement 15 authority. 16 Failure to attend the MSC or obtain proper excuse will be considered grounds 17 for sanctions. 18 4. No later than 14 days before the MSC, the parties shall exchange formal 19 settlement proposals. See J. Burkhardt Civil Chambers Rules § III.A. No later than 20 10 days before the MSC, the parties shall meet and confer in person or telephonically. 21 22 23 1 “Full authority to settle” means that the individuals at the settlement conference must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement 24 terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 25 648 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 26 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement 27 authority to attend the conference includes that the person’s view of the case may be altered during the face-to-face conference. Id. at 486. A limited or a sum certain of authority is 28 1 || See J. Burkhardt Civil Chambers Rules § II.B. 2 5. No later than March 26, 2025, counsel (and any unrepresented parties) shall 3 |}lodge confidential MSC statements with Judge Burkhardt’s chambers via e-mail at 4 |lefile Burkhardt@casd.uscourts.gov. The parties’ MSC statements shall comply with § 5 || IL.C. of Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: March 14, 2025 -

n. Jill L. Burkhardt ? ited States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 Mandatory Directions for Zoom Video Conference Participation 2 1. The Court will use its official ZoomGov video conferencing account to hold 3 the MSC. IF YOU ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH ZOOM: Zoom is available on 4 computers through a download on the Zoom website (https://zoom.us/meetings) or on 5 mobile devices through the installation of a free app.2 Joining a Zoom conference does not 6 require creating a Zoom account, but it does require downloading the .exe file (if using a 7 computer) or the app (if using a mobile device). Participants are encouraged to create an 8 account, install Zoom and familiarize themselves with Zoom in advance of the MSC.3 9 There is a cost-free option for creating a Zoom account. 10 2. Prior to the start of the MSC, the Court will e-mail each MSC participant an 11 invitation to join a Zoom video conference. Again, if possible, participants are encouraged 12 to use laptops or desktop computers for the video conference, as mobile devices often offer 13 inferior performance. Because Zoom may quickly deplete the battery of a participant’s 14 device, each participant should ensure that her or his device is plugged in or that a charging 15 cable is readily available during the video conference. Participants shall join the video 16 conference by following the ZoomGov Meeting hyperlink in the invitation. Participants 17 who do not have Zoom already installed on their device when they click on the 18 ZoomGov Meeting hyperlink will be prompted to download and install Zoom before 19 proceeding. Zoom may then prompt participants to enter the password included in the 20 invitation. All participants will be placed in a waiting room until the MSC begins. 21 3. Each participant should plan to join the Zoom video conference at least 22 5 minutes before the start of the MSC to ensure that the MSC begins on time. 23 4. Zoom’s functionalities will allow the Court to conduct the MSC as it 24 ordinarily would conduct an in-person MSC. That is, the Court will begin the MSC with 25

26 2 If possible, participants are encouraged to use laptops or desktop computers for the 27 video conference, as mobile devices often offer inferior performance. 3 For help getting started with Zoom, visit: https://support.zoom.us/hc/en- 28 1 all participants joined together in a main session. After an initial discussion in the main 2 session, the Court will divide participants into separate, confidential sessions, which Zoom 3 calls Breakout Rooms.4 In a Breakout Room, the Court will be able to communicate with 4 participants from a single party in confidence. Breakout Rooms will also allow parties and 5 counsel to communicate confidentially without the Court. 6 5. As previously stated, MSCs are confidential court proceedings. All attendees 7 must participate from a private and stable location where no individual who is not a party, 8 a party representative, or an attorney for a party can overhear the proceedings. All 9 attendees must be prepared to devote their full attention to the MSC as if they were 10 attending in person. This means that attendees must clear their schedules of all conflicts 11 for the entire period of the MSC.5 Attendees may not participate from a moving car or a 12 public space. 13 6. All participants are expected to display the same level of professionalism and 14 civility as they would at an in-person court proceeding. See CivLR 2.1; J. Burkhardt’s Civ. 15 Chambers R. § I. 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4 For more information on what to expect when participating in a Zoom Breakout Room, visit: https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115005769646 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)
Sexton v. Mitratech Holdings, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sexton-v-mitratech-holdings-inc-casd-2025.