Chalker v. Target Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael S. Berg (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to continue a scheduled video settlement conference and convert it to an in-person format. The court granted the motion, continuing the conference to September 6, 2022, and ordered it to be held in person with specific requirements for attendance and settlement authority.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Joint Motion to Continue the Video Settlement Conference“Having considered the joint motion and finding good cause, the Court GRANTS the motion. Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the video SC currently scheduled for July 7, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., until September 6, 2022, at 9:30 a.m.” | agree with court The court found good cause based on the parties' joint request for additional time to conduct good faith settlement discussions. This is a standard procedural determination within the court's discretion. |
Converting the Video Settlement Conference to an In-Person Conference“The Court further finds it appropriate to CONVERT the video SC to an in-person conference.” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to change the format of the settlement conference to in-person, likely to facilitate better resolution, and set specific logistical and procedural rules for the event. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a routine procedural ruling granting a joint motion to continue and modify a settlement conference. It correctly applies the standard of good cause for continuances and cites appropriate authority for the definition of settlement authority required for such conferences. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural nature of the order.
Opinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN CHALKER, et al., Case No.: 22cv457-W(MSB)
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 14 TARGET CORPORATION, CONTINUE FOLLOW-UP VIDEO 15 Defendant. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE [ECF NO. 19]
16 AND 17 (2) CONVERTING VIDEO SETTLEMENT 18 CONFERENCE TO IN-PERSON 19 CONFERENCE 20 21 On June 10, 2022, the parties filed a “Joint Motion to Continue the Video 22 Settlement Conference Scheduled for July 7, 2022.” (ECF No. 19.) They ask the Court to 23 continue the follow-up video Settlement Conference (“SC”) currently scheduled for 24 July 7, 2022, until August 29 or 30, 2022, or September 6 or 8, 2022. (Id. at 1.) In 25 support, the parties state that to date, they “have conducted good faith settlement 26 discussions and would like some additional time to carry on with those efforts.” (Id. at 27 2.) They further assert that “counsel for TARGET and the representative for TARGET 2 continue any other dates. (Id.) 3 Having considered the joint motion and finding good cause, the Court GRANTS 4 the motion. Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the video SC currently scheduled for 5 July 7, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., until September 6, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. 6 The Court further finds it appropriate to CONVERT the video SC to an in-person 7 conference. The SC will be held in the chambers of the Honorable Michael S. Berg, 8 United States Magistrate Judge, located at 221 West Broadway, second floor, San 9 Diego, California, 92101. All discussions at the SC will be informal, off the record, 10 privileged, and confidential. Counsel for any non-English speaking party is responsible 11 for arranging for the appearance of an interpreter at the conference. The following 12 rules and deadlines apply: 13 1. Personal Appearance of Parties Required: All named parties, party 14 representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, as well as the 15 principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present in person and legally 16 and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case. Counsel appearing without their 17 clients (whether or not counsel has been given settlement authority) will be cause for 18 immediate imposition of sanctions and may also result in the immediate termination of 19 the conference. If the parties’ insurance adjusters reside outside of the Southern 20 District of California, the Court allows them to appear telephonically through counsel 21 during the SC. 22 2. Full Settlement Authority Required: A party or party representative with 23 full settlement authority1 must be present at the conference. Retained outside 24 25 1 “Full settlement authority” means that the individuals at the SC must be authorized to fully explore 26 settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have 27 “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker 1 || corporate counsel shall not appear on behalf of a corporation as the party 2 || representative who has the authority to negotiate and enter into a settlement. A 3 |} government entity may be excused from this requirement so long as the government 4 || attorney who attends the SC has (1) primary responsibility for handling the case, and 5 ||(2) authority to negotiate and recommend settlement offers to the government 6 || official(s) having ultimate settlement authority. 7 3. Confidential SC Statements Required: No later than August 30, 2022, the 8 || parties shall submit directly to Magistrate Judge Berg’s chambers (via hand delivery or 9 || by e-mail to the Court at efile_berg@casd.uscourts.gov), confidential settlement 10 statements. The SC statement is limited to five (5) pages or less, and up to five (5) 11 || pages of exhibits or declarations. Each party’s SC statement must outline (1) the nature 12 || of the case and the claims, (2) position on liability or defense, (3) position regarding 13 settlement of the case with a specific demand/offer for settlement, and (4) any 14 || previous settlement negotiations or mediation efforts. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: June 14, 2022 _ Sx. 17 4 L <—{—\. 18 Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 altered during the face to face conference. Id. at 486. A limited or a sum certain of authority is not 28 adequate. See Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595-97 (8th Cir. 2001).