Daniel Aragon v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
Defendant moved to stay proceedings or, in the alternative, continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) due to counsel unavailability and a pending motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court granted the request to continue the ENE to April 8, 2026, but denied the request for a full stay of proceedings.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) Granted“Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause to continue the ENE.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard required by the local ENE order and Rule 6(b). The defendant provided specific reasons: counsel unavailability and the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings which could narrow issues. The court reasoned that an ENE without prepared counsel is inefficient and that resolving the pending motion first would facilitate better settlement discussions. This is a reasonable exercise of discretion. |
Motion to Stay Proceedings Denied“Accordingly, the request to stay proceedings is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified a stay as an extraordinary remedy. The defendant failed to show undue hardship, risk of inconsistent rulings, or prejudice to the orderly administration of the case that would justify a full stay. The court noted that the limited scheduling adjustment (continuing the ENE) was sufficient to address the judicial economy concerns. This is a standard and correct application of stay jurisprudence. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the 'good cause' standard for continuing the ENE and the 'extraordinary remedy' standard for a full stay. The court distinguishes between the two requests appropriately, granting the lesser relief (continuance) based on specific logistical and strategic justifications while denying the broader relief (stay) due to lack of demonstrated prejudice or hardship. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the arguments raised by the parties.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL ARAGON, Case No.: 3:25-cv-0814-BAS-SBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART THE MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS OR, IN 14 EXPERIAN INFORMATION THE ALTERNATIVE, CONTINUE SOLUTIONS, INC., 15 THE EARLY NEUTRAL Defendant. EVALUATION 16 17 [Dkt. No. 30] Before the Court is Defendant’s February 18, 2026, Motion to Stay Proceedings or, 18 in the Alternative, Continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (hereafter “Motion”) (Dkt. No. 19 30) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (hereafter “Opposition”) (Dkt. No. 31). The 20 Motion seeks to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) currently set for February 21 26, 2026, at 02:00 PM before United States Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu. (See Dkt. No. 22 28). After duly considering the submissions, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and 23 DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth below. 24 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. (Dkt. No. 22 at 3- 25 4 (Counsel must file a motion “setting forth good cause for the request”); see also Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 6(b) (“[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, 27 for good cause, extend the time”). Courts have broad discretion in determining whether 28 1 there is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 2 (9th Cir. 1992); Olvera v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-cv-789-H-AHG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3 117769, at *2, *4-*5 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 2025). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard 4 that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. 5 Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). 6 Here, Defendant represents to the Court that (1) they are unavailable to attend the 7 scheduled ENE and (2) a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is currently pending (Dkt. 8 No. 29), the resolution of which may narrow or clarify the issues for purposes of settlement 9 discussions. Plaintiff argues that further delay will result in prejudice (Dkt. No. 31 at 2). 10 The Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s concern. However, an ENE is intended to facilitate 11 meaningful settlement discussions, which requires the participation of counsel fully 12 prepared and authorized to engage in resolution efforts. Conducting the ENE without such 13 participation would undermine its purpose and expend judicial resources inefficiently. 14 Moreover, the resolution of the pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings may 15 materially affect the scope of the claims and defenses at issue. Allowing the Court to 16 address that motion before the ENE will better situate the parties to evaluate their 17 respective positions and engage in informed settlement discussions. Under these 18 circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause to continue the 19 ENE. 20 The Court, however, finds no basis to stay the proceedings in their entirety. A stay 21 of proceedings is an extraordinary remedy that is not granted as a matter of course. 22 Defendant has not shown that continuing to litigate this action pending resolution of the 23 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings would impose undue hardship, risk inconsistent 24 rulings, or otherwise prejudice the orderly administration of the case. Nor has Defendant 25 demonstrated that a stay would promote judicial economy beyond the limited scheduling 26 adjustment already addressed. Accordingly, the request to stay proceedings is DENIED. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion. 2 || The Court continues the ENE until April 8, 2026, at 10:00 AM. If the case does not settle, 3 Court will move into the Case Management Conference at that time. The parties must 4 ||comply with all of the requirements set forth in the Court’s December 02, 2025, Notice and 5 || Order for Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference (Dkt. 6 || No. 22) prior to that ENE. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: February 20, 2026 9 0 GF GA. 11 Hon. SteveB.Chu United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28