Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company v. The Crosby Estate at Rancho Santa Fe Master Association

District Court, S.D. California·Decided October 19, 2021·No. 3:21-cv-01249·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 IRONSHORE SPECIALTY Case No.: 3:21-cv-01249-WQH-AHG INSURANCE COMPANY, 13 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant, MOTION TO CONTINUE EARLY 14 NEUTRAL EVALUATION v. 15 CONFERENCE AND CASE THE CROSBY ESTATE AT RANCHO MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 16 SANTA FE MASTER ASSOCIATION, 17 [ECF No. 29] Defendant / Counter-Claimant.

25 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation 26 Conference (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”), currently scheduled for 27 December 3, 2021. ECF No. 29. 28 1 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. ECF No. 24 at 7 2 (“An ENE may be rescheduled only upon a showing of good cause”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating 3 that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”); see, 4 e.g., FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the 5 court may, for good cause, extend the time”). 6 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 7 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 8 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 9 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 10 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 11 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 12 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 13 The ENE and CMC in this case are scheduled for December 3, 2021. ECF No. 24. 14 Here, counsel for Plaintiff is unavailable on December 3 because he is lead counsel in 15 Steadfast Insurance v. Community Health Systems, which is scheduled for a two-week trial 16 commencing on December 6, with jury selection beginning on December 1. ECF No. 29 17 at 2; ECF No. 29-1 at 1–2. Thus, the parties seek to postpone the ENE and CMC. Id. 18 The Court appreciates the parties’ thorough motion and attention to the Court’s 19 chambers rules, and finds good cause to continue the ENE, CMC, and related deadlines. 20 As such, the parties’ joint motion is GRANTED as follows: 21 1. The ENE, originally rescheduled for December 3, 2021, is hereby RESET for 22 February 2, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. 23 2. In accordance with the Local Rules, the Court required in-person attendance 24 of all parties, party representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, and 25 the primary attorney(s) responsible for the litigation. CivLR 16.1(a). Due to the current 26 / / 27 / / 28 / / 1 COVID-19 public emergency, and upon due consideration, the Court hereby MODIFIES 2 the ENE to be via videoconference for all attendees. 3 2. Purpose of the Conference: The purpose of the ENE is to permit an informal 4 discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in 5 an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case. All conference discussions will be 6 informal, off the record, and confidential. 7 3. Full Settlement Authority Required: A party or party representative with 8 full and complete authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present via 9 videoconference or immediately available to join. Full authority to settle means that a 10 person must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to 11 any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat 12 Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion 13 and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 14 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. 15 Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595–97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs 16 to call another person who is not present on the videoconference before agreeing to 17 any settlement does not have full authority. 18 4. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than January 26, 2022, 19 the parties shall submit confidential statements of five (5) pages or less directly to the 20 21 22 1 On March 2, 2021, Chief Judge Dana M. Sabraw issued an Order in response to the 23 COVID-19 public emergency (“CJO #62”) which, among other things, suspends the requirement under Civil Local Rule 16.1(a) that ENEs be conducted in person. See CJO 24 #62 at 1. CJO #62 is available on the Court website at 25 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/rules/Chief%20Judge%20Order%2062%20- %20Civil%20Case%20Proceedings%20During%20the%20Covid- 26 19%20Public%20Emergency.pdf. The suspension of the requirement under Civil Local 27 Rule 16.1(a) that ENEs be conducted in person is also reiterated by CJO #62-B, filed on June 11, 2021. CJO #62-B is available on the Court website at 28 1 chambers of Magistrate Judge Goddard outlining the nature of the case, the claims, and the 2 defenses. These statements shall not be filed or served on opposing counsel. They shall 3 be lodged via email at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov. The ENE statement is limited to 4 five (5) pages or less, and up to five (5) pages of exhibits or declarations. Each party’s 5 ENE statement must outline: 6 A. the nature of the case and the claims, 7 B. position on liability or defense, 8 C. position regarding settlement of the case with a specific2 9 demand/offer for settlement,3 and 10 D. any previous settlement negotiations or mediation efforts. 11 E. commonalities and differences between this case and 12 Case No. 3:19cv2369-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal.) 13 5. Case Management Conference: In the event the case does not settle at the 14 ENE, the Court will immediately thereafter hold a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) 15 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b). Appearance of the parties at the CMC is not required. The 16 Court orders the following to occur before the CMC: 17 A. The parties must meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no 18 later than November 2, 2021.4 19

20 2 A general statement, such as that a party “will negotiate in good faith,” is a not a specific 21 demand or offer. 22 3 If a specific demand or offer cannot be made at the time the ENE statement is submitted, 23 then the reasons as to why a demand or offer cannot be made must be stated. Further, the 24 party must explain when they will be in a position to state a demand or offer. 25 4 This deadline remains unchanged from the Court’s September 14 Order rescheduling the ENE, which “provided this secondary deadline in case that first deadline was missed.” 26 ECF No. 24 at 4; see ECF No. 20 at 3 (original deadline of September 8, 2021); see also 27 ECF No. 29-1 at ¶ 2 (representing to the Court that “[o]n September 7, 2021, the parties held their Rule 26(f) conference in this action”). 28 1 B. The parties must file a Joint Case Management Statement by 2 January 21, 2022. The Joint Case Management Statement must 3 address all points in the “Joint Case Management Statement 4 Requirements for Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard,” which can 5 be found on the court website at: 6 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Join 7 t%20Case%20Management%20Statement%20Rules.pdf. 8 C.

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

Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company v. The Crosby Estate at Rancho Santa Fe Master Association, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company v. The Crosby Estate at Rancho Santa Fe Master Association (Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company v. The Crosby Estate at Rancho Santa Fe Master Association) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related