Cocroft v. EquipmentShare.com Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The court considered the parties' joint motion to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) and Case Management Conference (CMC) based on a pending motion to remand and the time required for damages analysis. The court denied the motion, finding no good cause to continue the proceedings.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference“Upon due consideration, the Court does not find good cause for a continuance. Therefore, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required for modifying scheduling orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and local rules. The court found that the parties' reasons (pending remand motion and time for damages analysis) did not constitute good cause, noting that ENEs are routinely held with motions pending and that the ENE process itself helps identify the timing for settlement discussions. The decision is consistent with the broad discretion afforded to courts in managing their dockets. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (good cause) and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority. The court's reasoning for denying the motion is logical: it asserts that the ENE process is useful even when motions are pending and that the need for damages analysis does not preclude early neutral evaluation, which is designed to facilitate settlement discussions. The court also provided a practical accommodation for the same-day deadline for ENE statements.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KEVIN DION COCROFT, an individual, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00645-BAS-AHG on behalf of himself and on behalf of all 13 ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION persons similarly situated, TO CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL 14 Plaintiffs, EVALUATION CONFERENCE AND 15 CASE MANAGEMENT v. CONFERENCE 16 EQUIPMENTSHARE.COM INC., 17 [ECF No. 9] Defendant. 18 19 20 21 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the Early Neutral 22 Evaluation (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”) currently set for 23 May 6, 2024. ECF No 6. 24 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. ECF No. 5 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 Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., 2 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. 3 Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). 4 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural 5 and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 6 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 7 scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 8 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.... 9 If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 10 Here, the parties seek a continuance ENE for two reasons. First, the parties represent 11 to the Court that Plaintiff intends to file a motion to remand. ECF No. 9 at 2. The parties 12 contend that continuing the ENE to a date 60 pays following the hearing on the 13 yet-to-be-filed motion would “allow time for the Court to decide Plaintiff’s motion to 14 remand and for the parties to avoid potentially unnecessary litigation costs.” Id. at 2–3. 15 Second, the parties argue that any settlement negotiations would “require a review and 16 analysis of class members’ time and payroll records[; c]ompiling and analyzing this data 17 will take approximately 3-6 months,” and therefore seek to continue the ENE until after 18 the damages analysis has been conducted. Id. at 2. 19 Upon due consideration, the Court does not find good cause for a continuance. 20 Therefore, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion.1 ECF No. 9. The Court finds that 21 an “informal discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of every aspect of 22 the lawsuit in an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case,” (ECF No. 5 at 2), would 23 24 25 11 As such, the ENE and CMC set for May 6, 2024, as well as all pre-conference deadlines, remain on calendar. The Court is cognizant, however, that the parties’ Confidential ENE 26 Statements (ECF No. 5 at 2–3) and Participant Lists (Id. at 5) are due on April 30, 2024. 27 In light of the instant order being filed on the same date, the Court permits the parties to lodge their Confidential ENE Statements and Participant Lists via email to 28 1 || be beneficial to the parties at this time. The Court also is unpersuaded that an impending 2 motion to remand would provide good cause for a continuance, and notes that it routinely 3 ||holds ENEs and settlement conferences with motions pending. The Court intends to use 4 ||the ENE in this case to identify: (1) when settlement discussions will be most fruitful; (2) 5 || whether the parties are interested in private mediation; and (3) what information needs to 6 exchanged through informal discovery, or obtained through formal discovery, to have 7 effective settlement discussion. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: April 30, 2024 10 _ArwioonH. Kovolar Honorable Allison H. Goddard 11 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28