Miller v. Jaxkelly, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 GABRIELLA MILLER, individually and Case No.: 3:24-cv-02303-JLS-AHG on behalf of others similarly situated, 13 ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION Plaintiff, TO CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL 14 EVALUATION CONFERENCE AND v. 15 CASE MANAGEMENT YOTPO, INC., CONFERENCE 16 Defendant. 17 [ECF No. 19] 18 __________________________________ 19 JAXKELLY, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, 20 v. 21 22 YOTPO, INC., Third-Party Defendant. 23 24 25 26 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the Early Neutral 27 Evaluation (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”) currently set for 28 June 11, 2025. ECF No. 19. 1 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 3 request”); see FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified 4 time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). 5 Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., 6 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. 7 Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). 8 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural 9 and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 10 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 11 scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 12 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.... 13 If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 14 Here, the parties seek a 60-day continuance of the ENE and CMC. ECF No. 19. They 15 explain that “[a] brief1 continuance will permit the parties to explore informal resolution 16 efforts before incurring the burden and expense of preparing for the ENE and C[MC].” Id. 17 at 2. However, the parties do not expand further. The parties do not explain whether they 18 had already begun settlement negotiations during the two months since the Court issued 19 the Order setting the ENE, which could have shown diligence. The parties also do not 20 explain what steps they plan to take during their proposed 60-day extension period. Further, 21 the parties did not address whether they had complied with other deadlines in the Court’s 22 Order, such as the May 21, 2025, meet and confer deadline. See ECF No. 12 at 3. Again, 23 this omission belies a finding of diligence. The Court also notes that the parties failed to 24 25 1 The Court notes that a 60-day continuance of an ENE is not “brief.” Local Rule 16.1(c) 26 requires that an ENE take place within forty-five (45) days of the filing of the first answer. 27 Unfortunately, the Court’s calendar did not allow for compliance with the 45-day deadline in this case, and the Court set the ENE for the earliest date available on its calendar. If a 28 1 provide a declaration from counsel, as required by the Court’s Chambers Rules. Chmb.R. 2 at 2 (requiring that the joint motion for continuance include a “declaration from counsel 3 seeking the continuance that describes the steps taken to comply with the existing 4 deadlines, and the specific reasons why the deadlines cannot be met”). Aside from being 5 required, a declaration would have been helpful to the Court in resolving the many 6 omissions noted above. 7 Upon due consideration, the Court does not find good cause for a continuance. 8 Therefore, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion. ECF No. 19. The Court finds that 9 an “informal discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of every aspect of 10 the lawsuit in an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case,” (ECF No. 12 at 2), would 11 be beneficial to the parties at this time. The Court intends to use the ENE in this case to 12 identify when settlement discussions will be most fruitful, whether the parties are interested 13 in private mediation; and what information needs to be exchanged through informal 14 discovery, or obtained through formal discovery, to have an effective settlement 15 discussion. The Court will, however, modify the conferences as follows: 16 1. The ENE set for June 11, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. via videoconference before the 17 Honorable Allison H. Goddard remains on calendar. However, instead of lasting all 18 afternoon, counsel should plan for it to last approximately one hour. 19 2. Parties, party representatives, and claims adjusters for insured defendants are 20 EXCUSED from attending the ENE. They may attend, but are no longer required. The 21 primary attorney(s) responsible for the litigation are still required to attend. 22 3. The CMC and pre-CMC deadlines (such as the Joint Case Management 23 Statement filing deadline, which was May 30, 2025) are CONTINUED. The Court will 24 reschedule the CMC and its related deadlines during the ENE. 25 4. The deadlines for emailing to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov the 26 Confidential ENE Statements and Participant Lists, which were due on June 4, 2025 (see 27 ECF No. 12 at 2, 5–6) are slightly continued to June 5, 2025. The ENE Statements need 28 not be as thorough as they would be for an afternoon-long ENE. 1 5. All other videoconference procedures and requirements set forth in the 2 || Court’s original Order setting the ENE and CMC remain in place. See ECF No. 12 at 4-6. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: June 4, 2025 Morn H. Honorable Allison H. Goddard 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28