Abreu Bautista v. Pagan-Rodriguez

Background

The opinion concerns a settlement conference in consolidated personal-injury cases brought by Yeiro Jose Abreu Bautista and Julio A. Monserrate. The plaintiffs alleged that they were injured when a tractor-trailer driven by Angel Luis Pagan-Rodriguez and owned by PFG Transco, Inc. collided with the automobile driven by Monserrate, in which Bautista was a passenger.

The court ordered each party to attend the April 14, 2025 settlement conference with required representatives. For PFG, the order required a decision-maker who knew the case and had responsibility for determining the amount of any settlement. The order also warned that failure to bring the required people could result in reimbursement of expenses or other sanctions. The defendants' attorney certified that Jim Diez of CorVel Corporation, PFG's third-party claims administrator, had the required authority.

At the conference, however, Diez explained that he could not negotiate beyond a preset limit given to him by PFG and CorVel. After the plaintiffs rejected the resulting take-it-or-leave-it offer, the conference could not continue. The defendants later explained that their settlement process involved multiple people reaching a consensus, but they did not explain why they had not disclosed Diez's limited authority or asked the court to modify its order before the conference. The opinion also states that Bautista's case had settled and that the remaining parties were engaged in pretrial motion practice.

Legal standard and analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) permits a court to issue appropriate orders when a party fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order, is substantially unprepared to participate in a conference, or does not participate in good faith. The court stated that these provisions apply to settlement conferences and that a finding of bad faith is not required for sanctions based on violating a pretrial order.

The court distinguished between refusing to make an acceptable settlement offer, which is permitted, and sending a representative who lacks authority to negotiate beyond a preset position after the court ordered the party to bring someone with genuine settlement authority. The court concluded that the defendants violated the settlement-conference scheduling order under Rule 16(f)(1)(C) and were substantially unprepared to participate under Rule 16(f)(1)(B). The defendants' internal decision-making process did not excuse their failure to comply with the court's order. The court also rejected the argument that sanctions were unwarranted because the case might not have settled even with a fully authorized representative.

Disposition

The court ordered the defendants to pay a $500 sanction to Monserrate within 30 days. It selected that amount instead of requiring a separate proceeding to calculate all fees and costs, noting that Diez had some authority and had improved the defendants' offer, even though he lacked authority to negotiate beyond the preset limit.

The opinion is signed by Barbara Moses, United States Magistrate Judge.