Carter et al v. UZGlobal LLC et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RASHEEM CARTER,
PETER WIRTH, on behalf of the
Estate of Ervin Burton, deceased, and
ERVIN BURTON, SR.,
Plaintiffs,
v. No. 1:23-cv-01013-MV-JHR
UZGLOBAL LLC d/b/a FASTPLUS CARGO,
OSMANY HANNA ROLDAN,
AMAZON.COM INC.,
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC,
AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC. d/b/a PRIME, and
RYDER TRUCK RENTAL INC.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING UZGLOBAL DEFENDANTS’
and PETER WIRTH’S MOTIONS TO EXCUSE ATTENDANCE FROM SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE [DOCS. 211, 218].
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants UZGlobal and Osmany Roldan’s
Motion for Excusal from Settlement Conference [Doc. 211] and Plaintiff Peter Wirth’s Motion for
Excusal from In-Person Appearance at Settlement Conference [Doc. 218]. Plaintiffs filed a
response objecting to UZGlobal and Roldan’s motion [Doc. 217], and UZGlobal and Roldan
(herein “UZGlobal Defendants”) filed a reply [Doc. 219]. No objections were filed in response to
Wirth’s motion. Having reviewed the briefing, case record, and applicable law, the Court
GRANTS both the UZGlobal Defendants’ and Peter Wirth’s motions. The Court DENIES the
request to excuse Plaintiffs Ervin Burton Sr. and Rasheem Carter made in Plaintiffs’ response to
the UZGlobal Defendants’ motion.
I. BRIEFING SUMMARY
A. UZGlobal Defendants’ Motion to Excuse.
Case 1:23-cv-01013-MV-JHR Document 235 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 8

2
The UZGlobal Defendants filed their motion on February 7, 2026, requesting that the Court
excuse both Roldan and Defendants' insurance adjuster from personal attendance at the settlement
conference scheduled for February 27, 2026, in Albuquerque. [Doc. 211]. Other Defendants do
not oppose, but Plaintiffs do. Id. at 3. The Court requires personal attendance of all named parties
in order "to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the settlement conference by reducing the
time for communication of offers." [Doc. 172, p. 2]. The Court may excuse personal attendance
upon written request. Id. UZGlobal's insurer, National Specialty Insurance Company, has tendered
policy limits as an offer of settlement. [Doc. 211, p. 2]. The UZGlobal Defendants claim that no
further purpose is served by attendance of either Roldan as UZGlobal's employee or the insurance
adjuster. Id. Roldan and the insurance adjuster can be available by telephone. Id. at 3. UZGlobal's
principal Rafik Hakimov will attend in person. Id. at 2.
Plaintiffs argue that "National's settlement offer was contingent on Plaintiffs releasing all
their claims, including those against Amazon," and thus "National did not make an unconditional
tender of policy limits." [Doc. 217, p. 1 (emphasis omitted); see also Id. pp. 2–3 (emphasis
omitted)]. The UZGlobal Defendants reply that all offers are conditional because no one ever
offers something of value with nothing expected in return, [Doc. 219, p. 2], missing or obscuring
Plaintiffs' point that National's offer is conditional not just on release of claims against its own
insureds but also claims against the Amazon Defendants. At the same time, Plaintiffs have not
articulated a principle that would render National's offer illusory or improper rather than merely
unpalatable to Plaintiffs.
National and the UZGlobal Defendants repeat that their tender of National's policy limits
is "[t]he salient fact" underlying their motion. Id. They say that National's adjuster "has no
decisions to make at settlement" and "Plaintiff [sic] may accept or reject the offer" so "[h]is
Case 1:23-cv-01013-MV-JHR Document 235 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 8

3
presence would be meaningless to the success or failure of negotiations." Id. at 3. According to the
UZGlobal Defendants, "any discussion of settlement amounts in excess of policy limits would
necessarily have to take place between Plaintiffs and [D]efendants (or their insurers) other than
Mr. Roldan, Mr. Hakimov, and National Specialty Insurance Company." [Doc. 211, p. 2].
Plaintiffs attached to their response a Certificate of Liability Insurance identifying
UZGlobal, LLC as an additional insured on a commercial general liability policy through Penn
Star Insurance Company and an automobile liability policy through National Continental
Insurance. [Doc. 217, p. 8]. Plaintiffs assert that each of those policies provides another $1 million
in coverage, though the coverage amounts are redacted from the exhibit. Compare Id. at 2, with
Id. at 8. Neither company has tendered any amount to settle this case. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs also argue
that both Roldan and UZGlobal face claims of liability in excess of the National Specialty policy
limits as well as claims for punitive damages and so should be expected to personally participate
in discussions of compromise of those claims. Id. at 2–4. In addition, representatives with
settlement authority for the two additional insurers should personally attend "so that they can make
critical decisions about how to defend the claims against them with full knowledge of all the
implications of the positions their counsel is espousing." Id. at 3–4.
The UZGlobal Defendants debate the significance of the proffered certificate of insurance:
though they acknowledge that it shows UZGlobal to be an additional insured on a policy issued to
a third party, they assert (without documentation or explanation) "that policy was not applicable
to any equipment or operation at issue in this case." [Doc. 219, p. 3]. Defendants characterize as
"ludicrous" Plaintiff's desire to involve National in the discussion whether the additional policy
could or should be at issue in these negotiations. Id.
Case 1:23-cv-01013-MV-JHR Document 235 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 8

4
Without identifying the argument as a separate motion, Plaintiffs propose that
"fundamental fairness" demands, if anyone with settlement authority is excused from in-person
attendance, all should be excused. [Doc. 217, pp. 4–5]. Plaintiffs claim a significant hardship from
"out-of-state travel and lodging" imposed by the personal attendance requirement because "Mr.
Burton Sr. is elderly and Ms. Carter is an injured mother of three." Id. at 4. The UZGlobal
Defendants object to Plaintiffs' request for "fairness" as not having been made by motion as
required by Rule 7. [Doc. 219, p. 5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1))]. They further object to excusal
of plaintiffs Burton and Carter "because they are the parties who 'have the power to make
decisions.'" Id.
B. Peter Wirth’s Motion to Excuse.
On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff Peter Wirth, on behalf of the estate of Ervin Burton,
deceased, filed a Motion for Excusal from In-Person Appearance at Settlement Conference. [Doc.
218]. Wirth noted that the sole beneficiary of the estate is Ervin Burton, Sr., who would have to
provide Wirth with settlement authority in response to any defense offer and would personally
attend the conference. Id. at 1–2. Wirth's absence is necessary because, prior to the conference
being scheduled, he made plans for a conflicting out-of-state family trip. Id. at 2. Wirth's conflict
was not disclosed prior to setting the conference because as a state legislator he was unavailable
for consultation during the 30-day legislative session. Id. Wirth will be available by phone except
from 10 a.m. through 12 p.m. while he is in flight and available through text messaging. Id.
Because of Ervin Burton, Sr.'s in-person attendance, "there will be no impediment to
communication of offers and efficiency." [Doc 218, p. 2]. All Defendants filed Defendants' Joint
Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Excusal of Peter Wirth's In-Person Attendance at Settlement
Case 1:23-cv-01013-MV-JHR Document 235 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Conference on February 17, 2026, stating that they "take no position" on Wirth's request. [Doc.
224, p. 1].
II. ISSUES PRESENTED
Whether the Court should excuse the following persons from attending in person the
February 27, 2026, settlement conference in Albuquerque:
1. Defendant Osmany Roldan, because as a former employee of UZGlobal he is not
contributing financially to the settlement and UZGlobal's insurer has tendered policy
limits as part of a pre-conference settlement offer.
2. UZGlobal's insurance adjuster, because the insurer has tendered policy limits and there
is no reason to think that there is any other applicable insurance policy at this time.
3. Plaintiff Ervin Burton Sr., because he is elderly and as a matter of "fundamental
fairness" if anyone else is excused (even though no motion was filed requesting his
excusal, and part of the basis for excusing Wirth is that Burton will be attending in
person).
4. Plaintiff Rasheem Carter, because she is "injured" and a mother of three young children
(even though no motion was filed requesting her excusal).
5. Plaintiff personal representative Peter Wirth, because he is a state legislator and the
2026 legislative session ran for thirty consecutive days ending on February 19, 2026,
preventing him from raising a pre-existing scheduling conflict, and because he will be
available by telephone to participate in negotiations and Defendants do not oppose his
excusal.
III. APPLICABLE LAW
Case 1:23-cv-01013-MV-JHR Document 235 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 8

6
"In every civil case the parties must participate in a settlement conference with a Judge
unless otherwise ordered by the Court." D.N.M.LR-Civ. 16.2(a). The local rules require that for
each party "at least two persons must attend:" the trial attorney and "the party or designated
representative with final settlement authority." Id. 16.2(c). The Order Setting Rule 16 Settlement
Conference (“Settlement Conference Order”), entered on December 29, 2025, requires that "[i]n
the case of institutional parties, a designated representative, other than counsel of record, with full
and final settlement authority must attend." [Doc. 172, p. 2 (emphasis and footnote omitted)]. A
request for excusal from attendance must be in writing and filed at least 7 days before the
settlement conference. D.N.M.LR-Civ. 16.2(d).
The Settlement Conference Order explains: "A party's personal appearance is intended to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the settlement conference by reducing the time for
communication of offers and expanding the ability to explore options for settlement." [Doc. 172,
p. 2 (emphasis omitted)]. The order adds: "Excused parties must be available by telephone
throughout the day of the conference." Id.
IV. ANALYSIS
The goal of in-person attendance is to maximize "efficiency and effectiveness" through
ease of communication and exploration of settlement options. Id. While excusals are possible, the
Court should exercise its discretion to serve that goal, balancing the cause asserted with the likely
effect. In particular, Local Rule 16 emphasizes that parties and representatives who hold actual
settlement authority must be actively and easily involved in settlement communications.
Osmany Roldan is a named party as the driver employee of UZGlobal who was personally
involved in the underlying accident. At this time, the primary source of funding for a settlement
involving Roldan as employee and UZGlobal as employer appears to be the insurance policy
Case 1:23-cv-01013-MV-JHR Document 235 Filed 02/20/26 Page 6 of 8

7
issued by National whose authorized adjuster has tendered the policy limits as part of a joint
counteroffer on behalf of all Defendants. Roldan does not have any authority to reduce or increase
the amount offered by his employer's insurance company, nor to veto a policy limits settlement if
tendered. Under those circumstances, Roldan does not carry actual settlement authority and his
request to be excused from in-person attendance is well-taken and should be granted. He will
remain available by telephone if needed.
UZGlobal will be represented in-person at the conference by its principal, Rafik Hakimov.
UZGlobal's insurer has tendered policy limits as part of a joint counteroffer with the other
Defendants which includes an amount of additional funds supplied by the Amazon Defendants.
National’s adjuster has actual and full settlement authority to the extent of the policy. Having
tendered policy limits, the adjuster's rule at the conference will be largely passive as Plaintiffs
negotiate to obtain additional recovery from the Amazon Defendants. Under the circumstances,
where National’s insurer will be available by telephone throughout the conference for
communication about the negotiations, there is little purpose in requiring in-person attendance.
The adjuster's request to be excused is well-taken and should be granted.
By motion, Plaintiffs requested that estate representative Peter Wirth be excused because
of a conflicting travel commitment and noting that true settlement authority for the estate of Ervin
Burton lies with its sole beneficiary, Ervin Burton, Sr. Because Ervin Sr. will be in personal
attendance, and Peter Wirth will be available by phone or, or by text messaging for a limited time
while in flight, there is little cost to the efficiency of the negotiations if Wirth is excused from in-
person attendance. His request is well taken and should be granted.
Without filing a separate motion, Plaintiffs Ervin Burton, Sr. and Rasheem Carter requested
in their response to the UZGlobal Defendants' motion that they be excused from in-person
Case 1:23-cv-01013-MV-JHR Document 235 Filed 02/20/26 Page 7 of 8

8
attendance because of the difficulty of traveling to the conference based on Ervin Sr.'s age and
Rasheem Carter's injury and family-care responsibilities. No additional detail was provided. Given
that Peter Wirth's excusal was expressly conditioned upon Ervin Sr.'s personal attendance and that
Ervin Sr. carries the actual settlement authority for his own claims as well as the estate's, his request
for excusal is not well-taken and should be denied. Though not similarly situated, Rasheem Carter's
role as the person with sole settlement authority for her own claims likewise requires her to attend
in-person and her request should be denied.
V. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff Peter Wirth and Defendant Osmany Roldan, as well as
National’s insurance adjuster are excused from in-person attendance on February 27, 2026, on the
condition that they remain available by phone, or for Mr. Wirth between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. by
text, for the duration of the conference. Plaintiffs Ervin Burton, Sr., and Rasheem Carter are not
excused and must attend in-person for the duration of the conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________
HON. JERRY H. RITTER
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:23-cv-01013-MV-JHR Document 235 Filed 02/20/26 Page 8 of 8