Strojnik v. Torrey Pines Club Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER STROJNIK, SR., Case No.: 3:19-cv-00650-BAS-AHG 12 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL 13 v. EVALUATION CONFERENCE 14 EVANS HOTELS, LLC, [ECF No. 90] 15 Defendant/Counter-Claimant. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue ENE (ECF 18 No. 90), filed nunc pro tunc on February 26, 2020. Plaintiff seeks to continue the Early 19 Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) currently set for March 4, 2020 in this case 20 because he has arranged to be out of the country on that date. Id. The Court’s order 21 rescheduling the ENE for March 4, 2020 was issued on January 3, 2020, after Plaintiff 22 requested to appear for the January 13, 2020 ENE telephonically due to significant pain 23 making it “medically difficult if not impossible [for Plaintiff] to travel from his home in 24 Phoenix to San Diego.” See ECF No. 60. Because in-person appearances are required for 25 ENEs, the Court continued the ENE rather than granting the request. ECF No. 61. 26 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. 27 P 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 28 consent”). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 1 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 2 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 3 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 4 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 5 Additionally, the initial order resetting the ENE and CMC in this case following 6 transfer to the undersigned sets forth several specific requirements for requests to continue 7 an ENE, which are also included in Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard’s Civil Pretrial 8 Procedures. These requirements include: (1) the request must be made by joint motion no 9 later than seven calendar days before the affected date; (2) the request must state the 10 original deadline or date of the ENE; (3) the request must state the number of previous 11 requests for continuances; (4) the movant must make a showing of good cause for the 12 request; (5) the motion must state whether the request is opposed and why; (6) the motion 13 must set forth whether the requested continuance will affect other case management dates; 14 and (7) the request must include a declaration from the party seeking the continuance that 15 describes the steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines, and the specific reasons 16 why the deadlines cannot be met. See ECF No. 42 at 4; Chmb.R. at 2. These requirements 17 were incorporated into each order resetting the ENE thereafter. See ECF Nos. 49 at 3; 18 57 at 2; 61 at 3. 19 Plaintiff failed to comply with any of the above requirements. Plaintiff’s ex parte 20 motion is two sentences in length: “Plaintiff has previously arranged to be out of the 21 country between March 2nd and March 14, 2020. Therefore, he respectfully requests a 22 continuance of the ENE to a time convenient to the Court.” ECF No. 90. Despite the 23 deficient filing, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and in an effort to ascertain whether 24 Plaintiff could provide additional information to demonstrate good cause to continue the 25 ENE due to a pre-planned vacation, chambers staff contacted Plaintiff and defense counsel 26 by email on February 28, 2020 to ask whether the request was opposed, and, if so, whether 27 Plaintiff had booked the vacation before the Court issued its January 3, 2020 order resetting 28 the ENE to March 4, 2020. Defense counsel confirmed that the request was opposed. 1 || Plaintiff initially refused to provide any information to the Court to confirm the booking 2 ||date, but eventually provided a screenshot showing that the vacation was booked on 3 January 22, 2020. Although Plaintiff noted that the trip was planned prior to booking, 4 || Plaintiff did not explain either in his motion or in his subsequent communications with the 5 Court why he waited until February 25, 2020 to mail the motion seeking a continuance. 6 || Whether or not Plaintiff had already tentatively planned a vacation for early March before 7 |\|learning of the January 3™ order rescheduling the ENE for March 4, 2020, Plaintiff 8 || proceeded to finalize the booking on January 22 in spite of the conflicting ENE date, and 9 || then waited more than a month after booking to notify the Court that he could not appear 10 || by way of a cursory ex parte motion that ignored all of the Court’s requirements for seeking 11 |}continuances. In other words, Plaintiff failed to show diligence, which is an essential 12 component of establishing good cause. 13 Indeed, Plaintiff's communications with the Court indicate a complete disregard for 14 || the expectation that a litigant should make a diligent effort to appear for hearing dates at 15 || all. However, the “good cause” standard requiring the Court to consider the diligence of 16 |/the party seeking a continuance is dictated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is 17 || applied to all litigants and counsel equally. Plaintiff has failed to meet that standard here. 18 || Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Continue ENE (ECF No. 90) is DENIED. Should Plaintiff 19 || fail to appear for the ENE, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why he should not 20 || face sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 34 Dated: March 2, 2020 4 25 Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28