Morneau v. Protective Life Insurance Company
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to extend the deadline to file their motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement by eight days. The court granted the motion, finding good cause based on the parties' diligent efforts to finalize settlement details.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint motion to extend deadline to file motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement granted“The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together and finds good cause to GRANT the joint motion.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for extending deadlines under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and local rules, requiring a showing of 'good cause.' The court cited Ninth Circuit precedent (Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc. and Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.) to define good cause as a non-rigorous standard focusing on diligence. The record recited in the order states that the parties have been working diligently and are close to finalizing the settlement agreement, which satisfies the standard. The decision is procedurally sound and follows from the cited law and the facts presented. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for extending deadlines under Rule 6(b) and local rules. It cites binding Ninth Circuit authority to define 'good cause' and applies that standard to the facts presented by the parties (diligent work on finalizing the settlement). The reasoning is direct, the authorities are appropriate, and the conclusion follows logically from the recited facts.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KEIR MILAN, individually, and on Case No.: 3:22-cv-01861-AHG behalf of the Class; CRISTIN 13 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MORNEAU and KELLY STRANGE, MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE 14 individually, and jointly as successors-in- TO FILE MOTION interest to Carolyn A. Morneau, and on 15 FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL behalf of the Estate of Carolyn A. Morneau 16 and the Class, [ECF No. 67] 17 Plaintiffs, 18 v. 19 PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and WEST COAST LIFE 20 INSURANCE COMPANY, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to extend the deadline to file their motion 26 for preliminary approval of class action settlement, which is presented due on 27 December 9, 2024. ECF No. 67. The parties request that the deadline to file their motion 28 for preliminary approval be extended by eight days. Id. 1 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 2 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good 3 cause, extend the time”). Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires 4 “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that 5 has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon 6 Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on 7 the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking 8 modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 9 Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original 10 deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 11 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). 12 Here, the parties represent to the Court that they have been working diligently 13 together and “are close to finalizing a long form class action settlement agreement.” ECF 14 No. 67 at 2. The parties explain that they “need additional time to … finaliz[e] details 15 related to notice of the settlement and distribution of settlement funds. The Parties are 16 working diligently on these items with an experienced and well-recognized class action 17 administrator.” Id. at 2–3. As such, the parties request that the deadline to file their motion 18 for preliminary approval be extended by eight days, to December 17, 2024. Id. 19 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together and finds good 20 cause to GRANT the joint motion. As such, the Court orders as follows: 21 1. By December 17, 2024, the parties must file either (a) a Joint Motion for 22 Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, (b) Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for 23 Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, or (c) Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary 24 Approval of Class Action Settlement. 25 A. The parties are not required to obtain a hearing date before filing the 26 motion and should instead include the following language in the caption 27 of the motion: “per Chambers, no oral argument unless separately 28 ordered by the Court.” 1 B. Should the motion filed be (b) or (c)—unopposed but not joint, or 2 Plaintiff's sole motion—Defendant must file a Notice on the docket no 3 later than December _18, 2024, indicating whether it opposes the 4 motion. The Court may set a briefing schedule and hearing at that time 5 if necessary. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: December 6, 2024 g hice H. Koviolar UE Honorable Allison H. Goddard 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28