Manuel Gonzalez, on behalf of other similarly situated employees of Defendants v. CGI Federal Inc., et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to stay the case for six months pending private mediation. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding that the parties failed to justify vacating the mandatory Early Neutral Evaluation and that a long stay was not warranted given the non-binding nature of mediation.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Joint Motion to Stay Case Pending Mediation“Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ joint motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the discretionary standard for stays, noting that the parties failed to address the impact on the mandatory Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) and that a six-month stay for non-binding mediation risks delaying justice and allowing discovery to grow stale. The decision is supported by the local rule requiring the ENE and the general principle that stays should not unduly delay litigation. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound and logically consistent. It correctly identifies the conflict between the requested stay and the mandatory local rule for Early Neutral Evaluation. It provides a clear rationale for denying the stay based on the non-binding nature of mediation and the potential for delay. However, it does not cite specific federal case law regarding the factors for a stay (such as the length of the stay, prejudice to the parties, or the public interest), relying instead on general principles and local rules.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL GONZALEZ, on behalf of Case No.: 26-cv-01018-AJB-BLM other similarly situated employees of 12 Defendants, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 13 TO STAY CASE PENDING Plaintiff, MEDIATION 14 v. 15 (Doc. No. 6) CGI FEDERAL INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to stay the instant action in order “to 20 preserve party and judicial resources as the Parties seek to resolve this case through 21 mediation[.]” (Doc. No. 6.) The parties state that they “have selected Hunter Hughes as the 22 private mediator and have confirmed a mediation date of July 10, 2026.” (Id. at 3.) To that 23 end, the parties seek to stay this case until September 8, 2026. (Id.) 24 Plaintiff filed the complaint on December 2, 2025, in state court, and Defendants 25 removed the action on February 17, 2026, concurrently filing an answer. (See Doc. Nos. 1; 26 4.) Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major issued an Order setting an Early Neutral 27 Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) for March 26, 2026. (Doc. No. 5.) “The purpose of the 28 ENE is to permit an informal discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of 1 every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case.” (/d. at 2 || 1.) See also CivLR 16.1.c.1 (“Within forty-five (45) days of the filing of an answer, counsel 3 the parties must appear before the assigned judge for an early neutral evaluation 4 ||conference; this appearance must be made with complete authority to discuss and enter into 5 || settlement.”). On March 11, 2026, the parties reached an agreement to participate in the 6 || July Mediation. (Doc. No. 6-1, Decl. of Nicholas J. Ferraro, § 4.) 7 In the instant motion, the parties fail to address why vacating the ENE—this 8 district’s mandatory early resolution mechanism provided at no cost to the parties—is 9 || warranted. Moreover, the possibility of settlement at private mediation in four months-time 10 || does not warrant staying the case for six months. Mediation, unlike arbitration, is a non- 11 binding method of dispute resolution that seeks to help litigants voluntarily reach their own 12 ||agreement. See, e.g., Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 146 Cal. App. 4th 536, 540 (2007). 13 There is no guarantee—despite the parties’ good intentions—that this action will be 14 ||resolved by the July Mediation. In the interim, this action will languish on the Court’s 15 ||docket, discovery may grow stale, and the interests of justice and efficiency will be 16 |/undermined. In fact, if the parties fail to settle at the July Mediation, this action will be 17 || approaching a year old with discovery just commencing. As such, a nearly six-month stay 18 |/is not warranted under the circumstances presented by the parties. 19 Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ joint motion. The 20 || Order setting ENE issued by Judge Major remains in full effect. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: March 12, 2026 © g 23 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court D048782 · 2007-01-04