Morgan v. Rohr, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint stipulation from the parties to continue a scheduled Settlement Disposition Conference (SDC) due to ongoing negotiations on a class settlement agreement. The court granted the stipulation, continuing the SDC to February 10, 2025, and vacating it if a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement is filed by February 3, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant the Joint Stipulation to Continue the Settlement Disposition Conference“Nonetheless, the Court finds good cause here and GRANTS the Joint Motion as follows: The SDC currently scheduled for December 10, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. is CONTINUED February 10, 2025, at 1:30 p.m.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard typically associated with scheduling orders and found it met based on the parties' ongoing efforts to finalize a settlement agreement. The court also noted the belated filing but exercised discretion to grant the request. This is a standard procedural ruling within the court's inherent authority to manage its docket. |
Vacate the Settlement Disposition Conference if a motion for preliminary approval of class settlement is filed by February 3, 2025“If the parties file the motion for preliminary approval of class settlement on or before February 3, 2025, the SDC will be VACATED without further court order.” | agree with court This is a conditional procedural order designed to streamline the process if the settlement progresses as anticipated. It is a reasonable exercise of case management authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a routine procedural ruling granting a joint stipulation to continue a hearing. It correctly identifies the standard ('good cause'), notes the procedural irregularity (belated filing), and sets clear conditions for the future (vacating the hearing if a settlement motion is filed). The reasoning is sufficient for the type of order issued.
Opinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL MORGAN, et al., Case No.: 20cv574-GPC (AHG)
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION TO 13 v. CONTINUE DECEMBER 10, 2024 SETTLEMENT DISPOSITION CONFERENCE 14 ROHR, INC., et al., [ECF NO. 321] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ “Joint Stipulation to Continue December 19 10, 2024 Settlement Disposition Conference.” (ECF No. 321 (“Joint Motion”).) In 20 support of their third request, the parties report that they are continuing to meet and 21 confer on finalizing the long-form settlement agreement, particularly in light of the 22 Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel’s decision in Hudson v. Libre Technology Inc., No. 18cv1371, 23 2019 WL 5963648, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2019). (Id. at 1.) The Court notes that the 24 parties belatedly made this request, since they filed this Joint Motion on the day the 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 || motion for preliminary approval of class settlement was due.* Moving forward, if the 2 || parties need further continuances for the Settlement Disposition Conference (“SDC”) 3 related deadlines, they must comply with Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg’s Civil 4 ||Chambers Rule V. Nonetheless, the Court finds good cause here and GRANTS the Joint 5 || Motion as follows: 6 The SDC currently scheduled for December 10, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. is CONTINUED 7 February 10, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. If the parties file the motion for preliminary approval 8 || of class settlement on or before February 3, 2025, the SDC will be VACATED without 9 || further court order.’ If the parties fail to file the motion for preliminary approval of 10 || class settlement by the deadline, or if counsel of record or any unrepresented party fails 11 || to appear at the SDC, the Court will issue an order to show cause why sanctions should 12 be imposed for failing to comply with this Order. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: December 4, 2024 —> □□ 15 : 16 Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 Although this Joint Motion was filed as a stipulation, the United States District Court, Southern District of California’s Local Rules state that such stipulations are not enforceable until the Court 26 || approves. See CivLR 7.2. A proposed order granting the joint motion must be e-mailed to the assigned district judge’s 27 || chambers on the same day. The proposed order must be e-mailed pursuant to section 2(h) of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative 28 Policies and Procedures Manual, available at www.casd.uscourts.gov.