1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN CARLOS GARCIA AYALA, Case No.: 23-CV-497-RBM-SBC

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER ON EX PARTE

13 v. APPLICATION TO EXCUSE

APPEARANCE OF S. ARCINIEGA

14 T. ARMSTEAD, et al.,

AT EARLY NEUTRAL

15 Defendants. EVALUATION CONFERENCE 16 17 Before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Excuse Appearance of S. 18 Arciniega at Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“Ex Parte Application” or 19 “Application”). (Doc. No. 16.) Defendants move the Court ex parte for an order excusing 20 Defendant S. Arciniega (“Defendant Arciniega”) from appearing at the December 6, 2023, 21 Video Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) in this matter. Plaintiff did not file a 22 response to Defendants’ Application or otherwise request additional time to respond to 23 Defendants’ Application at or prior to 5:00 p.m. on today’s date pursuant to this Court’s 24 Civil Chambers Rule VIII. For such reason, the Court construes Plaintiff’s silence on the 25 matter as non-opposition to Defendants’ Application. 26 Rule 16.1(c) of this District’s Civil Local Rules requires parties and party 27 representatives vested with full settlement authority to participate in a settlement 28 conference before the Court. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 16.1(c). “Full settlement authority” 1 ||means parties and party representatives must be authorized to fully explore settlement 2 || options and agree to settlement terms at the time of the settlement conference. Heileman 3 || Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). 4 ||Party representatives must have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the 5 ||settlement position of the party they represent. Pitman v. Brinker Intl., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 6 ||481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. July 8, 2003) (noting that full setthkement authority permits the party 7 || representative to adjust their view of the case while engaging in a face-to-face settlement 8 ||conference). A limited or a sum certain of authority is not adequate; party representatives 9 || must be able to negotiate a settlement without being restricted by any predetermined level 10 || of authority. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001). 11 Here, Defendants explain Defendant Arciniega “has pre-paid travel for a trip that 12 || will take him out of state and will require his time from December 2, 2023 through 13 ||December 9, 2023. It would be a hardship for S. Arciniega to take time to attend the 14 settlement conference for several hours while he is out of state.” (Doc. No. 16, 2:1-4.) 15 Defendants add Defendant Arciniega’s three co-defendants remain available to attend the 16 || Video ENE and, further, that defense counsel “will have authority to enter into settlement 17 ||agreements on behalf of Defendants.” (/d., 2:4-8.) Given Defendants’ representation that 18 Defendants R. Johnson, A. Rivera, and T. Armstead will appear for the Video ENE and 19 defense counsel has full settlement authority, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Ex 20 ||Parte Application and excuses Defendant Arciniega from appearing at the December 6, 21 |}2023, Video ENE. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: November 8, 2023

SF A.

29 Hon. SteveB.Chu 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28