1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROBERT QUINCY THOMAS, 1:19-cv-01217-DAD-GSA-PC 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE

13 REYNA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, Robert Quincy Thomas, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined 18 that this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to 19 Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto to conduct a settlement conference on June 9, 2022 at 10:00 20 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by 21 Zoom video conference.1 The court will issue the order detailing the procedures for the 22 settlement conference in due course. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto 25 on June 9, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be conducted by remote 26 means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference.

27 1 In light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak and the evolving coronavirus protocols, the Court may issue an order at a later date requiring the parties to appear in person. 1 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 2 settlement shall attend in person.2 3 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 4 The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in 5 person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not 6 proceed and will be reset to another date. 7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 9 Dated: March 14, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district court has the authority to 22 order parties, including the federal government, to participate in mandatory settlement conferences… .” United States v. United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 23 2012)(“the district court has broad authority to compel participation in mandatory settlement conference[s].”). The term “full authority to settle” means that the individuals attending the mediation conference must be authorized to 24 fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any 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 25 Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1396 (9th Cir. 1993). 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. 26 Brinker Int’l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 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 the case may be altered during the face to face conference. Pitman, 216 F.R.D. 27 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).