Phillips v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to continue a scheduled Settlement Disposition Conference (SDC) because the plaintiff had not yet signed a settlement agreement sent by the defendant. The court denied the motion, finding no good cause for the delay, and ordered the SDC to proceed as scheduled while vacating a separate deadline for a joint status report.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Continue Settlement Disposition Conference is denied.“Accordingly, the Joint Motion is DENIED. The telephonic SDC set for 16, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable [JUSTICE] shall remain on calendar as scheduled.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard for modifying a scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The parties failed to explain why the plaintiff had not signed the agreement for over six weeks, which does not constitute good cause. Furthermore, the court reasonably determined that holding the conference would assist in resolving any underlying disputes causing the delay. |
The May 14 deadline for the parties to provide a joint status report is vacated.“Because the parties provided an update regarding the status of settlement in the Joint Motion, the May 14 deadline for the parties to provide a joint status report to the Court via email is hereby VACATED.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage its docket. Since the information required for the status report was already provided in the motion, vacating the redundant deadline is a reasonable procedural adjustment. |
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 Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the 'good cause' standard. The court's reasoning that the lack of explanation for the six-week delay fails to meet the standard is logical and supported by the cited authorities. The decision to proceed with the conference to monitor the settlement status is a proper exercise of 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 PATRICK PHILLIPS, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00136-BEN-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT 13 v. DISPOSITION CONFERENCE 14 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 10] 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue 18 Settlement Disposition Conference. ECF No. 10. In the Joint Motion, the parties represent 19 that Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“MBUSA”) sent the settlement agreement to 20 Plaintiff on March 28, 2024, the same day the parties filed their Notice of Settlement. Id. 21 at 2. However, Plaintiff has yet to sign the settlement agreement. Id. MBUSA requires at 22 least 45 days after the settlement agreement is signed to fulfill the settlement terms. Id. 23 Under Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause 24 and with the judge’s consent.” “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been 25 construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, 26 Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence 27 of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking 28 modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 1 Here, the parties have failed to show good cause to continue the Settlement 2 || Disposition Conference (“SDC”). The purpose of the SDC is to monitor the status of 3 settlement and to ensure that settled cases are efficiently removed from the Court’s busy 4 || docket. In this case, the parties provide no explanation for why Plaintiff has not signed the 5 settlement agreement more than six weeks after Defendant provided it for his signature. 6 || The circumstances described in the Joint Motion indeed create all the more reason for the 7 || Court to move forward with the SDC as scheduled, to determine if the parties have ongoing 8 || disputes regarding the terms of the settlement or if there are other reasons causing the delay 9 || that the Court may be able to assist in addressing. 10 Accordingly, the Joint Motion is DENIED. The telephonic SDC set for 11 16, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard shall remain on 12 ||calendar as scheduled. Counsel shall call the chambers teleconference line at 1-877-873- 13 |}8018 and use 8367902 as the access code to join the conference. 14 Because the parties provided an update regarding the status of settlement in the Joint 15 || Motion, the May 14 deadline for the parties to provide a joint status report to the Court via 16 |/email is hereby VACATED. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: May 10, 2024 19 _Abiomt. Xl Honorable Allison H. Goddard 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28