Free Settlement Conference - District Court of California - California


File Size: 20.1 kB
Pages: 1
Date: August 27, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 328 Words, 2,004 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/casd/273373/33.pdf

Download Settlement Conference - District Court of California ( 20.1 kB)


Preview Settlement Conference - District Court of California
Case 3:08-cv-01134-L-LSP

Document 33

Filed 08/27/2008

Page 1 of 1

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CONNORS HON. LEO S. PAPAS Plaintiffs JANIS TURNER BARRETT MARUM v. HOME LOAN CORP. CT. DEPUTY J. JARABEK Attorneys Rptr. No. 08-1134-L(LSP) 1.5 HR

Defendants

Settlement Conference held. Further Settlement Conference shall be held on October 16, 2008 at 2:00 PM. All parties or their representatives who have full authority to enter into a binding settlement, in addition to the attorneys participating in the litigation, shall be present at the conference. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for insured defendants with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the mandatory settlement conference. Retained outside corporate counsel shall not appear on behalf of a corporation as the party who has the authority to negotiate and enter into a settlement. "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 terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have "unfettered discretion and authority" to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Intl., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-486 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement 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 not adequate. Nick v. Morgan's Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001).

DATED:

August 27, 2008

Hon. Leo S. Papas U.S. Magistrate Judge