2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 FRONTIER MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01600 DAD EPG 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE

15 NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY,

16 Defendant. 17

18 The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. 19 Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a 20 settlement conference on May 14, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted 21 by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 24 Newman on May 14, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted 25 by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference. 26 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 27 settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person1. 28

1 While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district court has the 1 2 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 3 The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in 4 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not 5 proceed and will be reset to another date. 6 4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days 7 prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered 8 to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Ifa 9 arty desires to share additional confidential information with the court, they may do party y may sO pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule and (e). 10 p t to the p f Local Rule 270(d) and (e) 11 42 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13] Dated: _ April 30, 2021 [spe ey 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 | 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 (9" 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 (7" Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1396 (9% 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 (8 Cir. 2001).