Daniel Aragon v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Opinion

DANIEL ARAGON, Case No.: 3:25-cv-0814-BAS-SBC

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO CONTINUE ENE AND STAY PROCEEDINGS SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant. [Dkt. No. 25] Before the Court is Defendant’s January 21, 2026, Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation and Stay Proceedings (hereafter “Motion”) (Dkt. No. 25) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (hereafter “Opposition”) (Dkt. No. 26). The Motion seeks to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) currently set for January 28, 2026, at 10:00 AM before United States Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu. (See Dkt. No. 22). After duly considering the submissions, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth below. Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. (Dkt. No. 22 at 3- 4 (Counsel must file a motion “setting forth good cause for the request”); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (“[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Olvera v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-cv-789-H-AHG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117769, at *2, *4-*5 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 2025). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, Defendant represents to the Court that this case is one of three active lawsuits filed by Plaintiff against Experian with the other two pending in the San Diego Superior Court, Small Claims Division (Dkt. No. 25 at 1). Defendant argues that the “allegations in Small Claims Case 0269 are nearly identical to those in this present lawsuit” (Dkt. No. 25 at 2) and that requiring the parties to participate in an ENE would “prejudice the parties as it would potentially result in conflicting outcomes regarding the same accounts and claims.” (Dkt. No. 25 at 2). As such, Defendant requests a continuance of the ENE by at least sixty-days (Dkt. No. 25 at 1). In light of Defendant’s claims, the Court finds a thirty-day continuance is prudent. The Small Claims Case 4553 has a hearing on January 28, 2026 (Dkt. No. 25 at 3) and the Small Claims Case 0269 has a settlement deadline of February 15, 2026, (Dkt. No. 25 at 2). The Court finds it an efficient use of judicial resources to continue the ENE until after these Small Claims cases have progressed. Defendant has demonstrated good cause that the claims of all three cases are intertwined and would affect how the parties act at the ENE. While Plaintiff opposes the continuance stating that proceeding with the ENE creates no inefficiency or prejudice (Dkt. No. 26 at 7), the Court finds that a thirty-day continuance strikes the right balance between using judicial resources efficiency with the need to hold an ENE early in a case. However, the Court does not find reason to stay the proceedings in its entirety. Defendant has not shown that this case is so dependent on the outcome of the Small Claims cases such that this matter must be stayed until those cases are completely resolved. /// /// /// Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion to Continue the ENE and Stay Proceedings. The Court continues the ENE until February 26, 2026, at 02:00 PM. If the case does not settle, the Court will move into the Case Management Conference at that time. The parties must comply with all of the requirements set forth in the Court’s December 02, 2025, Notice and Order for Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference. (Dkt. No. 22) prior to that ENE. Dated: January 27, 2026

United States Magistrate Judge