Dougan v. Centerplate, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered the parties' renewed joint motion to continue the early neutral evaluation conference and stay proceedings pending a private mediation scheduled for September 11, 2023. The court granted the motion, staying the action through September 11, 2023, and ordered the parties to file a joint status report by September 18, 2023.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Renewed Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Corresponding Dates and Deadlines“In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ Renewed Joint Motion and STAYS the action through September 11, 2023.” | agree with court The court applied the standard for staying proceedings, citing *Leyva* and *Clinton v. Jones*. It found 'good cause' based on the parties' agreement to mediate with a specific, highly sought-after mediator whose earliest availability was September 11, 2023. The court acknowledged the delay but respected the parties' autonomy in selecting their mediator. This is a discretionary decision within the court's broad authority to manage its docket and promote judicial economy, particularly where the parties jointly request the stay and provide a specific, reasonable timeline for resolution. |
Ordering the parties to file a joint status report“The Parties SHALL FILE a joint status report on or before September 18, 2023, apprising the Court of the status of the mediation and this action.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order to ensure the court remains informed of the case's status during the stay. It is a reasonable and appropriate exercise of the court's inherent authority to manage pending litigation. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant legal standards for granting a stay, citing binding Ninth Circuit precedent (*Leyva*) and Supreme Court precedent (*Clinton v. Jones*). It applies these standards to the specific facts presented: a joint motion, a specific mediation date, and a justification for the delay (mediator availability). The court's decision to grant the stay after previously denying a similar motion is justified by the new information regarding the specific mediator and the parties' renewed justification. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN DOUGAN, as an individual and Case No.: 22-CV-1496 JLS (BLM) on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING RENEWED Plaintiff, 13 JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE v. EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION 14 CONFERENCE AND CENTERPLATE, INC., a corporation; 15 CORRESPONDING DATES AND SODEXO, INC., a corporation; DEADLINES 16 CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 17 (ECF No. 9) inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Renewed Joint Motion to Continue Early 21 Neutral Evaluation Conference and Corresponding Dates and Deadlines (“Renewed Joint 22 Mot.,” ECF No. 9). The Parties previously reported that they scheduled a private mediation 23 for September 11, 2023, which would “moot or otherwise substantially affect the 24 procedural posture of this litigation.” ECF No. 7 at 3. This Court, however, denied the 25 Parties’ original Joint Motion, finding that “granting the Parties’ requests for a stay and 26 continuance would not serve the interests of judicial economy and efficiency.” ECF No. 8 27 at 2. 28 1 The Parties’ Renewed Joint Motion explains that the Parties have agreed to mediate 2 this dispute with “renowned wage hour class action mediator Steve Rottman.” Renewed 3 Joint Mot. at 4. According to the Parties, Mr. Rottman’s first available date is September 4 11, 2023, and similarly experienced mediators are frequently scheduled six to nine months 5 in advance of mediation. Id. at 5. The Parties also argue that if they are required to engage 6 in litigation prior to the mediation, “the mediation may prove unsuccessful.” Id. at 6. 7 Accordingly, the Parties ask the Court to reconsider staying the proceedings pending 8 mediation and issue a 150-day continuance of certain pre-trial dates and deadlines recently 9 established by Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major. See Joint Mot.; ECF No. 6. 10 A district court “may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the 11 fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of 12 independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., 13 Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). District courts have “broad discretion to stay 14 proceedings.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Granting a stay “is appropriate 15 when it serves the interests of judicial economy and efficiency.” Rivers v. Walt Disney 16 Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997). “A stay should not be granted unless it 17 appears likely the other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time in relation 18 to the urgency of the claims presented to the court.” Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864. 19 Here, the Court finds that good cause exists to grant the Renewed Joint Motion. 20 While the Court suspects that securing an earlier mediation date with a similarly 21 experienced mediator is well within the realm of possibility, the Court respects the Parties’ 22 ability to negotiate this dispute with the mediator of their choice. In the future, however, 23 the Court recommends that the Parties make an effort to schedule mediation within a more 24 efficient timeframe, especially if such extended delays are commonplace, as the Parties 25 contend. 26 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ Renewed Joint Motion 27 and STAYS the action through September 11, 2023. The Parties SHALL FILE a joint 28 / / / 1 ||status report on or before September 18, 2023, apprising the Court of the status of the 2 ||mediation and this action. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: April 3, 2023 psi L. Lo meeaitie- 5 on. Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28