CJ Solutions Group, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to continue a mandatory settlement conference due to a scheduling conflict for the defendant's representative. The court granted the motion and reset the conference date to February 27, 2020, despite noting the parties failed to demonstrate diligence in seeking the continuance.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Continue Mandatory Settlement Conference granted“Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Joint Motion and hereby RESETS the MSC date to Thursday, February 27, 2020, at 9:00 A.M.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard (good cause under Rule 16(b)) and correctly identified that the parties failed to meet the diligence requirement. However, the court granted the motion anyway based on the practical necessity of the representative's presence for a meaningful settlement conference. This is a discretionary decision that balances procedural strictness with the purpose of the conference. While the court noted the motion 'falls far short' of the standard, it exercised its discretion to grant the continuance to ensure the MSC is productive. This is a defensible exercise of discretion, though the reasoning is slightly contradictory (denying on the merits of the standard but granting on practical grounds). |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for modifying a scheduling order under Rule 16(b) and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority. It correctly notes the parties' failure to demonstrate diligence. However, the reasoning is somewhat disjointed: it states the motion 'falls far short' of the standard, yet grants it. The court bridges this gap by citing the practical necessity of the representative's presence for a 'meaningful and productive' settlement conference. While this is a valid exercise of judicial discretion, the order could have more explicitly framed the grant as an exception to the strict diligence requirement based on the court's interest in effective case management and settlement. The result is defensible, but the reasoning skips the explicit justification for overriding the lack of good cause.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CJ SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., Case No.: 19-CV-863-W-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 13 v. CONTINUE MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 14 TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On August 19, 2019, this Court issued a Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery 18 and Pre-Trial Proceedings in this matter (Doc. No. 5). In relevant part, the Order set a 19 January 17, 2020 Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”). Presently, just one week 20 shy of the MSC, the Parties filed their January 9, 2020 Joint Motion to Continue the MSC 21 Date (Doc. No. 10). The Joint Motion requests the continuance on the basis that a 22 scheduling conflict prevents Defendant’s representative from personally appearing before 23 the Court on January 17, 2020. 24 Glaringly, the Joint Motion explains neither the reason for the Parties’ extreme 25 delay in bringing their request to continue the MSC nor, relatedly, the date on which 26 Defendant first learned that a scheduling conflict had arisen. Equally notable, the Joint 27 Motion is silent as to what efforts, if any, Defendant made to make its representative 28 1 || available for the MSC after the scheduling conflict arose, to maintain compliance with 2 Court’s Scheduling Order. In themselves, these deficiencies warrant this Court’s 3 || denial of the Parties’ Joint Motion, as the Parties have failed to delineate what diligent 4 |\efforts they have made to satisfy the good cause standard that governs their Joint Motion. 5 || Watson v. TruWest Credit Union, 2013 WL 12124608 *1 (S.D. Cal. June 28, 2013) (“the 6 || Rule 16 good cause standard focuses on the ‘reasonable diligence’ of the moving party”’) 7 || (citing Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 477 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also Coleman 8 Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-1295) (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that Rule 16(b) 9 || scheduling orders may be modified for good cause based primarily on the movant’s 10 || diligence). 11 Given the above circumstances, the Joint Motion falls far short of meeting the 12 || good cause standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16. Nonetheless, the 13 || Court recognizes that the absence of Defendant’s representative from the January 17, 14 2020 MSC will critically impair, if not altogether prevent, meaningful and productive 15 || settlement discussions. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Joint Motion and 16 ||hereby RESETS the MSC date to Thursday, February 27, 2020, at 9:00 A.M. All other 17 || dates, as memorialized in the Court’s August 19, 2019 Scheduling Order, still stand. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: January 13, 2020 Se 20 UM Ss 71 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28