Lackman v. Blazin Wings, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion to modify pretrial disclosure deadlines and the final pretrial conference in light of pending cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted the motion to vacate the pretrial deadlines and sua sponte reset the mandatory settlement conference to a later date to be held in person.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Joint Motion to Vacate Pretrial Disclosure Deadlines and Final Pretrial Conference“Therefore, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the Joint Motion (ECF No. 50).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The parties demonstrated diligence and a valid reason (avoiding wasteful trial preparation while summary judgment motions are pending) for the modification. The decision is consistent with the cited authorities and the record. |
Sua Sponte Resetting the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) to October 5, 2021, and requiring it to be held in person“Accordingly, the MSC is hereby RESET from September 13, 2021 to October 5, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Allison H. [JUSTICE].” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage its docket and schedule proceedings. While the parties did not request the MSC reset, the court found it 'prudent' to hold it after the summary judgment hearing. The requirement for in-person attendance is a procedural directive within the court's discretion, though it notes a mechanism to revert to videoconference upon request. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)) and the relevant standard ('good cause'). It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent to define the standard and applies it logically to the facts (pending cross-motions for summary judgment making trial preparation potentially wasteful). The sua sponte action regarding the MSC is within the court's case management powers.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CASSANDRA LACKMAN, Case No.: 3:20-cv-1256-BEN-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 14 BLAZIN WINGS, INC., et al., VACATE PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE 15 Defendants. DEADLINES AND FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE; and 16 17 (2) SUA SPONTE RESETTING MANDATORY SETTLEMENT 18 CONFERENCE TO TAKE PLACE IN 19 PERSON 20 [ECF No. 50] 21 22 23 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Modify Pretrial Disclosure 24 Deadlines and the Final Pretrial Conference. ECF No. 50. Both parties have filed summary 25 judgment motions, each with a hearing date of September 20, 2021. ECF Nos. 45, 46. The 26 pretrial conference in this matter is currently set for October 18, 2021, with other pretrial 27 deadlines coming up in the preceding four weeks. ECF No. 15. In light of the pending 28 cross-motions, the parties ask the Court to temporarily vacate the Pretrial Conference and 1 related upcoming pretrial deadlines, to be reset following a resolution of the pending cross- 2 motions for summary judgment and/or partial summary judgment. ECF No. 50. 3 Under Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause 4 and with the judge’s consent.” “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been 5 construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, 6 Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence 7 of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking 8 modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 9 “[T]he court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably 10 be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory 11 committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by 12 acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift 13 Transportation Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. 14 Sept. 19, 2018). 15 Here, the parties have diligently met the case schedule deadlines, but seek a 16 temporary vacatur of the remaining dates to prevent the wasteful expenditure of time and 17 resources on trial preparation for claims that may be resolved if either of the parties’ cross- 18 motions are granted, either in part or in full. Therefore, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 1, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the Joint Motion (ECF No. 50). 20 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 21 The Pretrial Conference and all related pre-trial deadlines are VACATED. Within 22 three business days of the Court’s ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment, the 23 parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and to submit a joint motion to the Court 24 proposing new dates for the Final Pretrial Conference and all related pretrial deadlines. 25 Moreover, although the parties did not request that the upcoming Mandatory 26 Settlement Conference (“MSC”) be reset, the Court finds it prudent to hold the MSC after 27 the hearing date on the cross-motions. Accordingly, the MSC is hereby RESET from 28 September 13, 2021 to October 5, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Allison H. 1 || Goddard. 2 Although the MSC was previously set to take place by videoconference, the 3 rescheduled MSC will take place in person. At the appointed date and time, all attendees 4 should report to the chambers of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard, located on the third 5 || floor of the Edward J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse, 221 West Broadway, Suite 3142, San 6 || Diego, California 92101. Do not report to Courtroom 3B; report to Chambers. The Court 7 || will consider reverting the MSC to take place via videoconference if any party so 8 || requests. Requests to hold the MSC by videoconference should be lodged with the Court 9 || at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no later than September 27, 2021, with all counsel of 10 ||record copied on the email. Counsel should meet and confer before making any such 11 ||request to the Court and, if both sides prefer that the conference take place virtually, the 12 || parties should make the request jointly. 13 The parties are not required to submit updated Settlement Conference Statements or 14 Confidential Settlement Letters to the Court. The Court is in receipt of the previously 15 ||submitted statements. However, if any party wishes to submit an updated statement or 16 letter, counsel should lodge the statement or letter with the Court no later than 17 ||September 27, 2021. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 || Dated: September 9, 2021 _ Siow. Xion Honorable Allison H. Goddard 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28