Cobian v. BET Information Systems, Inc.
- 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) by 90 days to allow for a motion to compel arbitration and related discovery. The court denied the motion for lack of good cause but modified the conference schedule by excusing certain parties from the ENE and slightly extending the deadline for the Joint Case Management Statement.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of the parties' Joint Motion to Continue the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference.“Upon due consideration, the Court does not find good cause for a continuance. Therefore, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by the Local Rules and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). The order identifies specific deficiencies in the motion, including the lack of a proposed date for the arbitration motion, the lack of a specific discovery plan, and the failure to include a required declaration from counsel. Given these omissions and the broad discretion afforded to the court in scheduling matters, the denial is supported by the record recited in the order. |
Modification of the ENE and CMC schedule, specifically excusing named parties and representatives from the ENE and extending the Joint Case Management Statement deadline to August 28, 2025.“The Court will, however, modify the conferences as follows: ... 2. Named parties, party representatives, and claims adjusters for insured defendants are EXCUSED from attending the ENE. ... 3. The deadline for filing the Joint Case Management Statement is slightly continued to August 28, 2025.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent and rule-based authority to manage the docket and modify conference requirements to ensure the proceedings remain efficient and focused on the legal issues (arbitration) rather than factual discovery at this early stage. This is a standard case management function. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard (good cause) and cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Johnson, Ahanchian) to support the court's discretion. The court's reasoning for denial is specific, pointing to the lack of a concrete plan for the arbitration motion and discovery, as well as the failure to comply with local rule requirements (declaration from counsel). The modifications to the conference are reasonable case management measures.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ABRAHAM COBIAN, on behalf of Case No.: 3:25-cv-01999-GPC-AHG himself and all others similarly situated, 13 ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION Plaintiff, TO CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL 14 EVALUATION CONFERENCE AND v. 15 CASE MANAGEMENT BET INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., CONFERENCE 16 Defendant. 17 [ECF No. 7] 18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the Early Neutral 20 Evaluation (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”) currently set for 21 September 3, 2025. ECF No. 7. 22 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 23 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 24 request”); ECF No. 6 at 6–7 (same); see FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must 25 be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). Courts 26 have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. 27 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. Hansen, No. 28 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). “Good cause” 1 is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory 2 contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The 3 good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling 4 order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (“[T]he focus of 5 the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.... If that party was 6 not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party 7 demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the 8 court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at 9 *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). 10 Here, the parties seek a 90-day continuance of the ENE and CMC. ECF No. 7. They 11 explain that Defendant plans to file a motion to compel arbitration, which Plaintiff intends 12 to oppose. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also contends that he will need to conduct arbitration-related 13 discovery, and the parties are presently discussing the scope. Id. They explain that “a brief1 14 continuance” of approximately 90 days will “conserve judicial resources while the Parties 15 work through the issues related to enforcement of the arbitration agreement and potential 16 discovery related thereto.” Id. at 3. However, the parties do not expand further. For 17 example, the parties do not propose a date certain that Defendant intends to file its motion 18 to compel arbitration. Defendant does not represent that the motion has been drafted at this 19 time or the status thereof. Plaintiff does not represent that he has determined precisely what 20 discovery is sought, or suggest a deadline for any informal production. The Court also notes 21 that the parties failed to provide a declaration from counsel, as required by the Court’s 22 Chambers Rules and the Court’s Order setting the conferences. Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring 23 that the joint motion for continuance include a “declaration from counsel seeking the 24 continuance that describes the steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines, and the 25 26 27 1 The Court notes that a 90-day continuance of an ENE is not “brief.” Local Rule 16.1(c) requires that an ENE take place within forty-five days of the filing of the first answer. If a 28 1 || specific reasons why the deadlines cannot be met”); ECF No. 6 at 7 (same). Aside from 2 || being required, a declaration would have been helpful to the Court in resolving the many 3 || omissions noted above. 4 Upon due consideration, the Court does not find good cause for a continuance. 5 || Therefore, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion. ECF No. 7. The Court finds that 6 “informal discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of every aspect of 7 ||the lawsuit in an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case,” (ECF No. 6 at 1-2), 8 || would be beneficial to the parties at this time. The Court also finds that its assistance 9 ||regarding arbitration-related discovery will be beneficial to the parties and will keep the 10 || case on track. The Court will, however, modify the conferences as follows: 11 1. The ENE set for September 3, 2025 at 3:30 p.m. via videoconference before 12 ||the Honorable Allison H. Goddard remains on calendar. The Court notes to the parties 13 || that this conference was only planned to last approximately one hour. 14 2. Named parties, party representatives, and claims adjusters for insured 15 || defendants are EXCUSED from attending the ENE. The primary attorney(s) responsible 16 || for the litigation are still required to attend. 17 3. The deadline for filing the Joint Case Management Statement is slightly 18 continued to August 28, 2025. See ECF No. 6 at 3. 19 4. The deadlines for emailing to efile_goddard @casd.uscourts.gov (not filed) the 20 || Confidential ENE Statements and Participant Lists remain on August 28, 2025. See ECF 21 || No. 6 at 2—3, 5-6. 22 5. All other videoconference procedures and requirements set forth in the 23 ||Court’s original Order setting the ENE and CMC remain in place. See ECF No. 6 at 3-6. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: August 26, 2025 0 _ Siow. Xion Honorable Allison H. Goddard 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28