Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) conference, arguing that a pending forensic examination of the appliance would make settlement discussions more meaningful. The court granted the motion in part, continuing the ENE but ordering the parties to meet and confer to provide a firm date for the forensic examination and a timeline for findings.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation Conference granted in part“As such, the parties’ joint motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: 1. The ENE scheduled for February 9, 2024, is CONTINUED.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard, which focuses on the diligence of the moving party and the reasons for the request. The parties demonstrated diligence by initiating the tender of defense and arranging a joint forensic examination, which the court found would make the ENE more productive. Although the motion was filed late (violating the 7-day rule), the court exercised discretion to grant the continuance based on the substantive benefit of the forensic examination. |
Order requiring parties to meet and confer and provide firm forensic examination date“As such, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer regarding a firm date for the forensic examination. The parties must jointly email the Court (not filed) (at /efile_goddard @casd.uscourts.gov) with the firm date for the forensic examination no later than February 9, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.” | agree with court The court found that the parties' request to continue the ENE by 'approximately 90 days' was based on conjecture rather than specific information. To ensure the ENE is rescheduled appropriately, the court ordered the parties to provide concrete details regarding the forensic examination timeline. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable 'good cause' standard for continuing an ENE and applies it to the facts presented. The court acknowledges the procedural deficiency (late filing) but balances it against the substantive benefit of the forensic examination. The requirement for specific dates before setting a new ENE date is a reasonable exercise of case management authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE CO., Case No.: 3:23-cv-01847-CAB-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE 14 v. EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION 15 ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, CONFERENCE INC., 16 [ECF No. 12] Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation 23 Conference (“ENE”), currently scheduled for February 9, 2024. ECF No. 12. 24 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. ECF No. 4 at 6 25 (“An ENE may be rescheduled only upon a showing of good cause”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating 26 that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”); see 27 FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court 28 may, for good cause, extend the time”). 1 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 2 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 3 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 4 extend deadlines and the reasons for seeking the modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 5 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 6 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 7 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good 8 cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. 9 Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 10 19, 2018). 11 Here, the parties have represented to the Court that Defendant has tendered its 12 defense in this matter to the manufacturer, who acknowledged that it manufactured the 13 appliance at issue and tendered the claim to its insurance carrier. ECF No. 12 at 2; ECF 14 No. 12-1 at 2. The insurance carrier has retained counsel to represent the manufacturer, but 15 has not yet been able to assess the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Id. Plaintiff, Defendant, and 16 the manufacturer have agreed to conduct a joint forensic examination of the appliance at 17 issue. Id. Thus, because the parties believe that settlement discussions will be more 18 meaningful after the forensic examination has been completed, the parties request to 19 continue the ENE. ECF No. 12 at 3. The parties expect the forensic examination will be 20 completed within 60 days and, therefore, request to continue the ENE by approximately 90 21 days. Id. 22 Despite the joint motion’s shortcomings,1 the Court finds good cause to continue the 23 ENE. As such, the parties’ joint motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: 24 / / 25 26 1 Compare Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that “[a]ll requests for continuances must be made by 27 a joint motion no less than seven calendar days before the affected date”) (emphasis added) with ECF No. 12 (filed three days before the ENE). 28 1 1. The ENE scheduled for February 9, 2024, is CONTINUED. 2 2. The counsel-only? Case Management Conference (“CMC”) remains on 3 ||calendar for February 9, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard 4 videoconference. 5 3. The Court agrees that the ENE would likely be more productive after the 6 ||forensic examination is completed. However, beyond conjecture that they “reasonably 7 || believe” the forensic examination and initial findings would be completed within 60 days, 8 ||the parties have not provided enough specific information for the Court to select an ENE 9 || date. As such, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer regarding a firm date for 10 ||the forensic examination. The parties must jointly email the Court (not filed) (at 11 |/efile_goddard @casd.uscourts.gov) with the firm date for the forensic examination no later 12 || than February 9, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. The parties must also include in their email the length 13 || of time it will take for the initial findings to be completed, as well as an explanation of 14 || what it entails to prepare those findings. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 6, 2024 Ny WD AH. □□ ulolan yA Honorable Allison H. Goddard 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Clients are always welcome to attend, but are not required.