Post v. American Medical Response of Southern California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) and Case Management Conference (CMC) scheduled for August 4, 2025, based on plaintiff's counsel's personal family obligations. The court denied the motion for lack of good cause but modified the conferences to be shorter in duration and excused non-essential personnel from attending the ENE.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference“As such, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion. ECF No. 6.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by Local Rules and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). The court identified specific deficiencies in the motion: the failure to establish when the conflicting event was planned relative to the scheduling order, the fact that the scheduled date was already the earliest available slot despite exceeding the 45-day local rule deadline, and the flexibility provided by videoconference. These factors support the conclusion that the personal inconvenience of counsel does not constitute good cause to delay case management proceedings. |
Modification of ENE and CMC procedures (shortened duration, excusal of non-attorneys, adjusted statement requirements)“The Court will, however, modify the conferences as follows: 1. The ENE and CMC set for August 4, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. via videoconference before the Honorable [JUSTICE] remain on calendar. However, instead of lasting all afternoon, counsel should plan for the conferences to last approximately one hour.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent and rule-based authority to manage its docket and tailor proceedings to the needs of the case. By shortening the conference and excusing non-essential personnel, the court addressed the logistical concerns raised by the motion without granting a continuance, thereby balancing the parties' convenience with the need for timely case progression. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard ('good cause'), cites relevant Ninth Circuit and district court authority, and applies that standard to the specific facts presented (lack of diligence details, existing calendar constraints, and videoconference flexibility). The court's decision to deny the motion while offering a compromise (shortened conference) demonstrates appropriate judicial discretion in case management.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 CHEYENNE POST, on behalf of others Case No.: 3:25-cv-01329-AJB-AHG similarly situated, 13 ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION Plaintiff, TO CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL 14 v. EVALUATION CONFERENCE AND 15 CASE MANAGEMENT AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF CONFERENCE 16 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., 17 Defendants. [ECF No. 6] 18 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the Early Neutral 19 Evaluation (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”) currently set for 20 August 4, 2025. ECF No. 6. 21 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 22 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 23 request”); see FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified 24 time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). Courts have broad discretion in 25 determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 26 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 27 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that 28 has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon 1 Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on 2 the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking 3 modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving 4 party’s reasons for seeking modification.... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should 5 end.”) (internal citation omitted). 6 Here, the parties seek a continuance of the ENE and CMC. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff’s 7 counsel represents to the Court that August 4, 2025, is his wife’s birthday and he will be 8 hosting family at his house who are visiting from Canada. ECF No. 6-1 at 2. Though the 9 Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s counsel’s desire to continue the ENE, the Court does not 10 find sufficient good cause in this instance. First, Plaintiff’s counsel does not include details 11 in his declaration regarding when the birthday plans were made, i.e., before the Court 12 scheduled the ENE, or after. Second, Defendants’ answer was filed on the federal docket 13 on May 23, 2025, (ECF No. 3), and this district’s Local Rules require that an ENE take 14 place within 45 days of the filing of the first answer. CivLR 16.1(c). The Court’s calendar 15 did not allow for compliance with the 45-day deadline in this case, and the Court set the 16 ENE for the earliest date available on its calendar, August 4, 2025, which is 73 days after 17 the answer was filed. ECF No. 4 n.1. The Court is not inclined to delay the case further. 18 Third, the Court notes that the conferences are taking place via videoconference to facilitate 19 flexibility for the parties, as opposed to requiring in-person attendance. 20 As such, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion. ECF No. 6. The Court will, 21 however, modify the conferences as follows: 22 1. The ENE and CMC set for August 4, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. via videoconference 23 before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard remain on calendar. However, instead of 24 lasting all afternoon, counsel should plan for the conferences to last approximately 25 one hour. 26 2. Parties, party representatives, and claims adjusters for insured defendants are 27 EXCUSED from attending the ENE. The primary attorney(s) responsible for the litigation 28 are still required to attend. 1 3. The Court intends to use the ENE in this case to identify when settlement 2 || discussions will be most fruitful, whether the parties are interested in private mediation; 3 ||and what information needs to be exchanged through informal discovery, or obtained 4 through formal discovery, to have an effective settlement discussion. 5 4. The deadlines for emailing to efile_goddard @casd.uscourts.gov (not filed) the 6 || Confidential ENE Statements and Participant Lists remain due on July 28, 2025. See ECF 7 4 at 2-3, 5-6. However, the ENE Statements need not be as thorough as they would 8 || be for an afternoon-long ENE. 9 5. The deadline for filing the Joint Case Management Statement remains 10 || July 24, 2025. See ECF No. 4 at 3+4. 11 6. All other videoconference procedures and requirements set forth in the 12 || Court’s original Order setting the ENE and CMC remain in place. See ECF No. 4 at 4-6. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: July 22, 2025 _ArwiornH. Kuler Honorable Allison H. Goddard 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28