Ireland v. Solaris Enterprise, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJanuary 5, 2022
Docket3:21-cv-00902
StatusUnknown

This text of Ireland v. Solaris Enterprise, LLC (Ireland v. Solaris Enterprise, LLC) 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
Ireland v. Solaris Enterprise, LLC, (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIFFANY IRELAND et al., Case No.: 21-CV-902-JLS(WVG)

12 Plaintiffs, AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 13 v. REGULATING DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL 14 SOLARIS ENTERPRISE, LLC et al., PROCEEDINGS 15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 22.] 16

17 For good cause shown, the deadline by which fact discovery shall be completed is 18 extended as set forth below. Additionally, the motions filing deadline and Mandatory 19 Settlement Conference are necessarily reset as set forth below. Accordingly, IT IS 20 HEREBY ORDERED: 21 1. All discovery pertaining to facts shall be completed on or before March 31, 22 2022. All discovery pertaining to expert witnesses shall be completed on or before 23 February 4, 2022. 24 “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, 26 so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for services, 27 notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any motions 28 1 and the resolution of any discovery disputes. All disputes concerning discovery shall be 2 brought to the attention of the Magistrate Judge no later than thirty (30) days following the 3 date upon which the event giving rise to the discovery dispute occurred. Counsel shall meet 4 and confer pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and Local Rule 26.1(a). The 5 Court will hear the disputes only after counsel have met and conferred and have reached 6 impasse regarding the particular issue. A failure to comply in these regards will result 7 in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the Court, no stipulation 8 continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the Court. 9 2. All other pretrial motions must be filed by March 18, 2022. Counsel for the 10 moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will 11 hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the 12 hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure 13 to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 14 Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the 15 district judge. 16 3. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on April 1, 2022, at 17 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo via Zoom as set forth in Appendix A. 18 Counsel shall submit settlement statements directly to chambers no later than March 24, 19 2022. Each party’s settlement statement shall set forth the party’s statement of the case, 20 identify controlling legal issues, concisely set out issues of liability and damages, and shall 21 set forth the party’s settlement position, including the last offer or demand made by that 22 party, and a separate statement of the offer or demand the party is prepared to make at the 23 settlement conference. Settlement conference briefs shall not be filed with the Clerk of 24 the Court but may be served on opposing counsel at the party’s discretion. Settlement 25 conference briefs shall comply with the undersigned’s Chambers Rules. The parties 26 shall meet and confer in good faith prior to the Mandatory Settlement Conference and 27 verify that they have done so in their respective Mandatory Settlement Conference 28 statements, outlining the substance of their discussions and negotiations. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Local Civil Rule 16.3, all named 2 Plaintiffs, named Defendants, claims adjusters for insured defendants, and if a named 3 Plaintiff or Defendant is a corporation, partnership, or other entity, a representative of that 4 entity, with full and unlimited authority1 to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement, 5 as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present and must 6 be prepared to discuss in good faith, the facts of the case, the law that governs the legal 7 issues in the case, and to resolve the case at the Settlement Conference. Sanctions may 8 issue against a party and/or attorney who does not proceed as noted above. Retained outside 9 corporate counsel shall not appear on behalf of a corporation as the party who has the 10 authority to negotiate and enter into a settlement. For good cause, and on ex parte 11 application at least one week before the scheduled settlement conference, Magistrate Judge 12 Gallo may excuse a party or representative from personal attendance provided such party 13 or parties will be available by telephone during the conference. Failure to attend the 14 conference or participate in good faith or obtain proper excuse will be considered grounds 15 for sanctions. Counsel seeking to reschedule a Settlement Conference must first confer 16 with opposing counsel. The Court will consider formal, written ex parte requests to 17 continue a Settlement Conference when extraordinary circumstances exist that make a 18 continuance appropriate. In and of itself, having to travel a long distance to appear at the 19 Settlement Conference is not an extraordinary circumstance. 20 21 22 23 1 “Full authority to settle” means that the individuals at the settlement conference must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement 24 terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 25 648 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 26 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement 27 authority to attend the conference includes that the person’s view of the case may be altered during the face-to-face conference. Id. at 486. A limited or a sum certain of authority is not 28 1 4. Counsel shall file their Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law and take 2 any other action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) by June 9, 2022. 3 5. Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. 4 Civ. P. 26(a)(3) by June 9, 2022. Failure to comply with these disclosure requirements 5 could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 6 6. Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) by 7 June 16, 2022. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into stipulations 8 and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall exchange 9 copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. The exhibits 10 shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel shall note any 11 objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 26(a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the proposed pretrial conference 13 order. 14 7. Counsel for plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and 15 arranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By June 23, 2022, 16 plaintiff’s counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed pretrial order for 17 review and approval.

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

Related

Pitman v. Brinker International, Inc.
216 F.R.D. 481 (D. Arizona, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ireland v. Solaris Enterprise, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ireland-v-solaris-enterprise-llc-casd-2022.