Shane v. County of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 AMANDA SHANE, individually and as Case No.: 22-CV-1309-JO-SBC successor-in-interest for Decedent Isaiah 12 Shane, ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ EX 13 PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN Plaintiff, ORDER EXCUSING NATSA 14 v. DEFENDANTS FROM COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 16 Defendants. 17

18 Before the Court is the National Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abuse 19 (“NATSA”), Yoshita Conrad, Freddy Macias, and Jeanette Villarreal’s (collectively, 20 “NATSA Defendants”) Ex Parte Application for an Order Excusing NATSA Defendants 21 from Attendance at ENE (“Ex Parte Application”). (Doc. No. 74.) In relevant part, the 22 NATSA Defendants move the Court for an order excusing individual Defendants Conrad, 23 Macias, and Villarreal from appearing at the July 27, 2023, Video Early Neutral Evaluation 24 Conference (“ENE”) in this matter. The NATSA Defendants explain Conrad will be on a 25 pre-paid vacation, Macias will be standing by for the birth of his child, and Villarreal will 26 be working at the time of the ENE. In doing so, the NATSA Defendants aver their counsel 27 of record, Daniel Modafferi, and insurance adjuster, Mary Rossi, will both have “full 28 1 authority to discuss and enter into settlement.” (Id., 2:4-6.) The NATSA Defendants add 2 that Plaintiff does not oppose the instant request for relief. 3 As a threshold matter, Rule 16.1(c) of this District’s Civil Local Rules requires 4 parties and party representatives vested with full settlement authority to participate in a 5 settlement conference before the Court. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 16.1(c). “Full settlement 6 authority” means parties and party representatives must be authorized to fully explore 7 settlement options and agree to settlement terms at the time of the settlement conference. 8 Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989) (emphasis 9 added). Party representatives must have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the 10 settlement position of the party they represent. Pitman v. Brinker Intl., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 11 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. July 8, 2003) (noting that full settlement authority permits the party 12 representative to adjust their view of the case while engaging in a face-to-face settlement 13 conference). A limited or a sum certain of authority is not adequate; party representatives 14 must be able to negotiate a settlement without being restricted by any predetermined level 15 of authority. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001). 16 As noted, the NATSA Defendants offer varying reasons for their absence from the 17 July 27, 2023, ENE. With the exception of Defendant Macias, the Court finds none of those 18 reasons availing. As named parties to this Action and having asserted affirmative defenses 19 in their Amended Answer to the operative First Amended Complaint, Defendants must 20 actively engage in all aspects of this litigation, including the court-mandated ENE. (See 21 Doc. No. 61.) Conrad’s vacation and Villarreal’s work schedule are not sufficiently 22 compelling reasons to warrant their absence from the ENE. Nevertheless, the Court 23 GRANTS the NATSA Defendants’ Ex Parte Application exclusively because Plaintiff’s 24 counsel attested he and the insurance adjuster have “full settlement authority” and he 25 “would not need to contact anyone at NATSA for settlement approval.” (July 19, 2023, 26 Email from Daniel Modafferi to this Court’s Chambers.) The NATSA Defendants are 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 || cautioned that similar requests for relief will not be granted absent an unequivocal showing 2 || of good cause. 4 || Dated: July 26, 2023 : Ay FG.

7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28