Fernando Gonzalez v. Walmart Super Center 5023

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedNovember 3, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-02131
StatusUnknown

This text of Fernando Gonzalez v. Walmart Super Center 5023 (Fernando Gonzalez v. Walmart Super Center 5023) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fernando Gonzalez v. Walmart Super Center 5023, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 FERNANDO GONZALEZ, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02131-LL-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE EARLY 14 v. NEUTRAL EVALUATION 15 WALMART SUPER CENTER 5023, CONFERENCE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 16 Defendant.

17 [ECF No. 4] 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 November 12, 2025. ECF No. 4. 24 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 25 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 26 request”); ECF No. 3 at 6 (same); see FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be 27 done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). Courts have 28 broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. 1 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Olvera v. Citibank, N.A., 2 No. 25-cv-789-H-AHG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117769, at *2, *4–*5 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 3 2025). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 4 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 5 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 6 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d 7 at 609 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 8 modification.... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). 9 Here, the parties represent to the Court that lead counsel for Defendant is unavailable 10 on November 12, 2025, because she has a previously-scheduled medical appointment with 11 a specialist that cannot be rescheduled without significant hardship. ECF No. 4 at 4. 12 Plaintiff’s counsel also has a conflict on November 12, 2025, though no details were 13 provided. Id. As such, the parties request a continuance of the ENE and CMC. Id. 14 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together, and finds good 15 cause to GRANT the joint motion as follows: 16 1. The ENE and CMC scheduled for November 12, 2025, are RESET for 17 January 14, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard via 18 videoconference. 19 2. Purpose of the Conference: The purpose of the ENE is to permit an informal 20 discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in 21 an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case. All conference discussions will be 22 informal, off the record, and confidential. 23 3. Full Settlement Authority Required: A party or party representative with 24 full and complete authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present via 25 videoconference. Full authority to settle means that a person must be authorized to fully 26 explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to 27 the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 28 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the 1 settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. 2 Ariz. 2003). Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, 3 Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595–97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs to call another person 4 who is not present on the videoconference before agreeing to any settlement does not 5 have full authority. 6 4. No later than December 18, 2025, the parties must each serve their first round 7 of written discovery. 8 5. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than 9 December 22, 2025, the parties shall submit confidential statements of five (5) pages or 10 less directly to the chambers of Magistrate Judge Goddard outlining the nature of the case, 11 the claims, and the defenses. These statements shall not be filed or served on opposing 12 counsel. They shall be lodged via email at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov. The ENE 13 statement is limited to five (5) pages or less. There is not a page limit on exhibits. Each 14 party’s ENE statement must outline: 15 A. the nature of the case and the claims, 16 B. position on liability or defense, 17 C. position regarding settlement of the case with a specific1 18 demand/offer for settlement,2 19 D. any previous settlement negotiations or mediation efforts, and 20 E. confirmation of the date written discovery was served (see ¶ 4). 21 The Court may use GenAI tools to review the information that the parties submit. 22 Either party may object to the Court’s use of such tools by advising the Court’s law clerk 23

24 25 1 A general statement, such as that a party “will negotiate in good faith,” is not a specific demand or offer. 26 2 If a specific demand or offer cannot be made at the time the ENE statement is submitted, 27 then the reasons as to why a demand or offer cannot be made must be stated. Further, the 28 party must explain when they will be in a position to state a demand or offer. 1 of that objection when they submit the information. The Court will respect that objection 2 without any further explanation, and the Court’s law clerk will only communicate to Judge 3 Goddard that there was an objection, not which party made the objection. 4 6. Case Management Conference: In the event the case does not settle at the 5 ENE, the Court will immediately thereafter hold a CMC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). 6 Appearance of the parties at the CMC is not required. The Court orders the following to 7 occur before the CMC: 8 A. The parties must meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no 9 later than December 1, 2025. 10 B. The parties must file a Joint Case Management Statement by 11 December 17, 2025. The Joint Case Management Statement must 12 address all points in the “Joint Case Management Statement 13 Requirements for Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard,” which can be 14 found on the court website at: 15 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Join 16 t%20Case%20Management%20Statement%20Rules.pdf. 17 C. Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D) must occur by 18 December 15, 2025. 19 7. Appearances via Videoconference Required: All named parties, party 20 representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, as well as principal 21 attorney(s) responsible for the litigation must attend the ENE via videoconference. All who 22 attend the ENE must be legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case. 23 Counsel appearing without their clients (whether or not counsel has been given settlement 24 authority) will be subject to immediate imposition of sanctions. To facilitate the 25 videoconference ENE, the Court hereby orders as follows: 26 A. The Court will use its official Zoom video conferencing account to hold 27 the ENE. If you are unfamiliar with Zoom: Zoom is available on computers through a 28 download on the Zoom website (https://zoom.us/meetings) or on mobile devices through 1 the installation of a free app. Joining a Zoom conference does not require creating a Zoom 2 account, but it does require downloading the .exe file (if using a computer) or the app (if 3 using a mobile device).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fernando Gonzalez v. Walmart Super Center 5023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernando-gonzalez-v-walmart-super-center-5023-casd-2025.