Charlie Scollard v. Costco Wholesale, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) conference and Case Management Conference due to a pending motion to remand. The court granted the motion, continuing the ENE to July 29, 2026, and directing the parties to comply with prior case management requirements based on the new date.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference granted“Good cause appearing, and in light of the pending motion to remand (Dkt. No. 5), the Joint Motion is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and local rules. The existence of a pending motion to remand is a recognized basis for good cause to stay or continue proceedings, as the court may lack jurisdiction or the proceedings may be moot if the case is remanded. The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard (good cause under Rule 6(b) and local rules), cites appropriate authority for the breadth of judicial discretion, and applies that standard to the specific fact of a pending motion to remand. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLIE SCOLLARD, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1198-JLS-SBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. CONTINUE ENE AND STAY PROCEEDINGS 14 COSTCO WHOLESALE, et al., 15 Defendants. [Dkt. No. 11]
16 Before the Court is the parties’ May 18, 2026, Joint Motion to Continue Early 17 Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference (hereafter “Joint 18 Motion”) (Dkt. No. 11). The Motion seeks to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation 19 (“ENE”) currently set for May 29, 2026, at 10:00 AM before United States Magistrate 20 Judge Steve B. Chu (Dkt. No. 10). Good cause appearing, and in light of the pending 21 motion to remand (Dkt. No. 5), the Joint Motion is GRANTED. 22 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. (Dkt. No. 4 at 3- 23 4 (Counsel must file a motion “setting forth good cause for the request”); see Fed. R. Civ. 24 P. 6(b) (“[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for 25 good cause, extend the time”). Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there 26 is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 27 1992); Olvera v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-cv-789-H-AHG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117769, 28 1 *2, *4-*5 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 2025). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has 2 ||been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon 3 || Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9" Cir. 2010). 4 Accordingly, the Court continues the ENE until July 29, 2026, at 10:00 AM. If the 5 ||case does not settle, the Court will move into the Case Management Conference at that 6 || time. The parties must comply with all of the requirements set forth in the Court’s February 7 ||27, 2026, Notice and Order for Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case 8 || Management Conference (Dkt. No. 4) based on the new ENE date. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: May 19, 2026 11 13 Hon. SteveB.Chu United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28