Chen v. Allied Waste Systems, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Valerie E. Torres (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to continue a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) due to a pending class certification hearing and to set a case management conference (CMC) if the case did not resolve. The court granted the motion, vacated the original MSC date, reset the MSC for February 21, 2024, and ordered a CMC to follow immediately if no settlement was reached.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Joint Motion to Continue Mandatory Settlement Conference and Set Case Management Conference“Based on a review of the record, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion.” | agree with court The order recites that a motion for class certification is pending on the same day as the scheduled settlement conference, which constitutes good cause for a continuance to avoid scheduling conflicts and ensure the court can address the certification issue first. The decision to grant the joint motion and set a subsequent CMC is a standard exercise of case management authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural scheduling order. It correctly identifies the conflict (pending class certification hearing) as good cause for the continuance. It cites appropriate authority regarding the requirements for settlement conference attendance and authority, although these citations are standard boilerplate for such orders and do not directly impact the ruling on the continuance itself. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural action taken.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PLAINTIFF, QIHAI CHEN on behalf of Case No.: 3:22-cv-00099-JO-VET himself and a class of all others similarly 12 situated, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 MOTION TO CONTINUE Plaintiffs, JANUARY 3, 2024 MANDATORY 14 v. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND 15 SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.; CONFERENCE 16 REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; DOES 1- 50, inclusive, 17 Doc. No. 96 Defendants. 18 19 20 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue January 3, 2024 Mandatory 21 Settlement Conference (“MSC”) (“Joint Motion”). Doc. No. 96. Given a pending motion 22 for class certification, set for hearing on January 3, 2024, the parties seek a continuance of 23 the MSC and setting of a case management conference (“CMC”) immediately following 24 the MSC if the case does not resolve. Id. at 2. Based on a review of the record, and good 25 cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. The Court ORDERS as follows: 26 27 28 1 1. The MSC currently set for January 3, 2024 is hereby VACATED and RESET 2 for an in-person MSC on Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 10:00 AM at James M. 3 Carter and Judith N. Keep U.S. Courthouse, 333 West Broadway, 10th Floor, San Diego, 4 CA 92101.1 5 2. If the case does not settle during the MSC, the Court will immediately proceed 6 with a CMC. No later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the scheduled MSC/CMC, the 7 parties shall file a joint proposed schedule with proposed deadlines for expert disclosures, 8 expert discovery, pretrial motions, and the pretrial conference. 9 3. The following are mandatory procedures to be followed in preparation for the 10 MSC. Absent express permission from this Court, counsel must timely comply with the 11 dates and deadlines herein. Questions regarding the MSC or the mandatory guidelines set 12 forth herein may be directed to Judge Torres’ Chambers at (619) 557-6384. 13 a. Full Settlement Authority Required. Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1.c.1, all 14 parties, party representatives, including claims adjusters for insured parties, and the 15 principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation must participate in the MSC.2 This 16 appearance must be made with full and complete authority to negotiate and enter into a 17 binding settlement.3 18 19 20 1 Counsel may request the MSC/CMC be converted to a videoconference through a joint call or email to Judge Torres’ Chambers (efile_torres@casd.uscourts.gov). Counsel 21 must meet and confer prior to contacting Chambers and be prepared to explain the circumstances supporting the request. 22 2 The attendance requirement includes parties that are indemnified by others. Any 23 deviation from this Order requires prior Court approval. 24 3 Full authority to settle means that the individuals at the MSC are authorized to fully 25 explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th 26 Cir. 1989). Party participants need to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to 27 change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-486 (D. Ariz. 2003). One of the purposes of requiring a person with complete 28 1 b. Confidential Settlement Brief. No later than seven (7) calendar days before 2 ||the MSC, each party must lodge a Confidential Settlement Brief by email to 3 |/efile_torres@casd.uscourts.gov. The Confidential Settlement Brief should not exceed ten 4 ||(10) pages, excluding exhibits, and must be formatted according to the requirements of 5 Local Rule 5.1(a). Parties attaching exhibits must attach only the relevant pages of multi- 6 || page exhibits and must highlight the relevant portions. 7 C. Contents of Settlement Brief. All Confidential Settlement Briefs shall 8 |jinclude the content specified in the Court’s Chambers Rules, available at 9 || https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/torres/docs/Civil%20Chambers%20Rules.pdf. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: December 22, 2023 12 [wre cK 13 Honorable Valerie E. Torres 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 be altered during the face-to-face conference. /d. at 486. Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595-597 (8th 28 Cir. 2001).