James Alger v. North City Hotel One, LLC and Brick Hospitality, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedOctober 31, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-02355
StatusUnknown

This text of James Alger v. North City Hotel One, LLC and Brick Hospitality, Inc. (James Alger v. North City Hotel One, LLC and Brick Hospitality, Inc.) 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
James Alger v. North City Hotel One, LLC and Brick Hospitality, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES ALGER, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02355-H-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE 13 v. EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION 14 NORTH CITY HOTEL ONE, LLC and CONFERENCE AND CASE BRICK HOSPITALITY, INC., MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 15

Defendants. 16 [ECF No. 6] 17 18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the Early Neutral 20 Evaluation (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”) currently set for 21 December 9, 2025. ECF No. 6. 22 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 23 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 24 request”); ECF No. 5 at 7–8 (same); see FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must 25 be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). Courts 26 have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. 27 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Olvera v. Citibank, N.A., 28 No. 25-cv-789-H-AHG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117769, at *2, *4–*5 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 1 2025). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 2 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 3 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 4 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d 5 at 609 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 6 modification.... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). 7 Here, the parties represent to the Court that they “are making progress in their 8 settlement discussions.” ECF No. 6 at 2. The parties explain that they “wish to avoid the 9 time and expense of traveling to the subject premises” to comply with pre-ENE deadlines 10 while they “are working through settlement options.” Id. The parties contend that 11 “incurring additional attorney fees and costs for meeting ENE deadlines would interfere 12 with settlement progress rather than help it.” Id.; see ECF No. 6-1 at 2 (counsel represents 13 that he believes an extension will enable the parties to reach “resolution of all claims 14 without the additional costs associated with the ENE and meeting the deadlines associated 15 with it”). As such, the parties request a 60-day continuance1 of the ENE and CMC, and 16 provided a proposed list of dates for the conferences and pre-conference deadlines. ECF 17 No. 6 at 3–4. 18 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together, and finds good 19 cause to GRANT IN PART2 the joint motion as follows: 20 1. The ENE and CMC scheduled for December 9, 2025, are RESET for 21 February 6, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard via 22 videoconference. 23 24 1 The parties seek to continue the “Early Neutral Evaluation, Telephone Status 25 Conferences, In-Person Meet and Confer Deadline, Case Management Conference and Related Deadlines,” (see ECF No. 6 at 1; ECF No. 6-1 at 2), however, there were no 26 telephonic status conferences set in this matter. 27 2 The Court does not have availability on the ENE date requested and, thus, has modified 28 1 2. Purpose of the Conference: The purpose of the ENE is to permit an informal 2 discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in 3 an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case. All conference discussions will be 4 informal, off the record, and confidential. 5 3. Full Settlement Authority Required: A party or party representative with 6 full and complete authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present via 7 videoconference. Full authority to settle means that a person must be authorized to fully 8 explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to 9 the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 10 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the 11 settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. 12 Ariz. 2003). One of the purposes of requiring a person with unlimited settlement authority 13 to attend the conference is that the person’s view of the case may be altered during the 14 face-to-face conference. Id. at 486. Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. Nick 15 v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595–97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs to 16 call another person who is not present on the videoconference before agreeing to any 17 settlement does not have full authority. 18 4. All formal discovery is stayed until after the Rule 26(f) conference. 19 5. Meet and Confer Requirement: No later than January 8, 2026, counsel for 20 the parties, and any unrepresented parties, must meet and confer in person at the subject 21 premises regarding settlement of (1) the alleged premise violations, and (2) damages, costs 22 and attorney fees. Plaintiff’s counsel is responsible for making arrangements for the 23 conference. The meet and confer obligation cannot be satisfied by telephone or the 24 exchange of letters. 25 6. Joint Statement Required: No later than January 12, 2026, counsel for all 26 parties shall lodge with Magistrate Judge Goddard’s chambers a joint statement no longer 27 than two (2) pages, certifying that the required in-person conference between counsel took 28 place and setting forth the results of the meet and confer and the issues remaining to be 1 discussed at the ENE. This joint statement should be lodged via email at 2 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov. 3 7. Plaintiff’s counsel shall be prepared to present documentation to the Court for 4 in camera review at the ENE, supporting the amount of attorney fees and costs claimed. 5 8. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than January 29, 2026, 6 the parties shall submit confidential statements of five (5) pages or less directly to the 7 chambers of Magistrate Judge Goddard outlining the nature of the case, the claims, and the 8 defenses. These statements shall not be filed or served on opposing counsel. They 9 shall be lodged via email at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov. The ENE statement is 10 limited to five (5) pages or less. There is not a page limit on exhibits. Each party’s ENE 11 statement must outline: 12 A. the nature of the case and the claims, 13 B. position on liability or defense, 14 C. position regarding settlement of the case with a specific3 15 demand/offer for settlement,4 and 16 D. any previous settlement negotiations or mediation efforts. 17 The Court may use GenAI tools to review the information that the parties submit. Either 18 party may object to the Court’s use of such tools by advising the Court’s law clerk of that 19 objection when they submit the information. The Court will respect that objection without 20 any further explanation, and the Court’s law clerk will only communicate to Judge Goddard 21 that there was an objection, not which party made the objection. 22 / / 23

24 25 3 A general statement, such as that a party “will negotiate in good faith,” is a not a specific demand or offer. 26 4 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.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
James Alger v. North City Hotel One, LLC and Brick Hospitality, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-alger-v-north-city-hotel-one-llc-and-brick-hospitality-inc-casd-2025.