Krista Freitag, Court-appointed permanent receiver for ANI Development, LLC, American National Investments, Inc., and their subsidiaries and affiliates v. Sarah Christine Peterson
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to continue the Second Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference due to counsel's unavailability. The court granted the motion, vacated the scheduled conferences, and set a deadline for the Receiver to file a motion to stay the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint motion to continue the Second Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference is granted.“The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together and finds good cause to GRANT the joint motion.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard required by the local rules and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). The parties provided a specific reason for the request (counsel's prior commitment to a hearing before the California Medical Board) and represented that they had been working together. Under the broad discretion afforded to courts in scheduling matters, this constitutes a valid showing of good cause. |
The Second Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference set for April 27, 2026, are vacated.“As such, the ENE and CMC set for April 27, 2026 are VACATED.” | agree with court Vacating the specific dates is the logical procedural consequence of granting the motion to continue. The court also provided a mechanism for rescheduling contingent on the filing of a motion to stay, which is a reasonable exercise of case management authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard (good cause) and cites appropriate binding authority from the Ninth Circuit and local rules. The court's finding that the parties' representation of counsel's unavailability and their collaborative efforts constitute good cause is consistent with the broad discretion afforded to district courts in managing their dockets. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural scheduling order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KRISTA FREITAG, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02257-TWR-AHG Court-appointed permanent receiver for 13 ORDER GRANTING IN PART ANI Development, LLC, American JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE 14 National Investments, Inc., and their SECOND EARLY NEUTRAL subsidiaries and affiliates, 15 EVALUATION CONFERENCE AND Plaintiff, CASE MANAGEMENT 16 CONFERENCE v. 17 SARAH CHRISTINE PETERSON; [ECF No. 29] 18 CLAIRE LAUREN PETERSON; 19 DEL MAR CAPITAL INVESTORS, LLC; and DOES 1–10, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to continue the Second Early Neutral 27 Evaluation (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”) currently scheduled for 28 April 27, 2026. ECF No. 29. 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”). Courts have broad discretion in 5 determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 6 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Olvera v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-cv-789-H-AHG, 2025 7 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117769, at *2, *4–*5 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 2025). “Good cause” is a non- 8 rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. 9 Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause 10 standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and 11 the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry 12 is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.... If that party was not 13 diligent, the inquiry should end.”). 14 Here, the parties represent to the Court that counsel for Defendant Del Mar Capital 15 Investors LLC is unavailable on April 27, 2026, because he has a previously-scheduled 16 in-person hearing before the California Medical Board, where he will be presenting a 17 defense for his client, a surgeon. ECF No. 29 at 2; ECF No. 29-1 at 1. As such, the parties 18 request a continuance of the Second ENE. Id. 19 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together and finds good 20 cause to GRANT the joint motion. ECF No. 29. Additionally, the Court is cognizant that 21 the Receiver may file a motion to stay the case while the DCMI settlement is effectuated. 22 See ECF No. 23-4 at 6 (“In the meantime, and once this Agreement has been approved by 23 the District Court, the Parties shall stipulate to take such steps as are reasonably necessary 24 to obtain a stay of the Fraudulent Transfer Action such that the Parties can work to complete 25 the sale of the Property and the payments required hereunder without incurring litigation 26 expenses associated with the Fraudulent Transfer Action”). As such, the ENE and CMC 27 set for April 27, 2026 are VACATED. If the Receiver does not file a motion to stay by 28 May 15, 2026, the Court will reschedule the Second ENE at that time. If the Receiver files 1 ||a motion to stay on or before the May 15, 2026, deadline, the Court will reset the Second 2 after the District Judge rules on the motion to stay. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: April 21, 2026 A DS H. | b 5 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