Lorena Covarrubias De Esquer v. Marriott Hotel Services, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedOctober 27, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-02747
StatusUnknown

This text of Lorena Covarrubias De Esquer v. Marriott Hotel Services, LLC (Lorena Covarrubias De Esquer v. Marriott Hotel Services, 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
Lorena Covarrubias De Esquer v. Marriott Hotel Services, LLC, (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 LORENA COVARRUBIAS DE ESQUER, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02747-GPC-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE 14 v. EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION 15 MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, LLC, CONFERENCE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 16 Defendant.

17 [ECF No. 8] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the Early Neutral 27 Evaluation (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”) currently set for 28 November 5, 2025. ECF No. 8. 1 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 3 request”); ECF No. 5 at 6 (same); see FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be 4 done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). Courts have 5 broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. 6 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Olvera v. Citibank, N.A., 7 No. 25-cv-789-H-AHG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117769, at *2, *4–*5 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 8 2025). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 9 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 10 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 11 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d 12 at 609 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 13 modification.... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). 14 Here, the parties represent to the Court that lead counsel for Defendant is unavailable 15 on November 5, 2025, because he will be attending a deposition in another matter. ECF 16 No. 8 at 2. Additionally, Defendant’s representative assigned to this action is also not 17 available on November 5, 2025, because she will be attending a mediation in another 18 matter. Id. As such, the parties request a continuance of the ENE and CMC. Id. 19 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together, and finds good 20 cause to GRANT IN PART1 the joint motion as follows: 21 1. The ENE and CMC scheduled for November 5, 2025, are RESET for 22 January 7, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard via 23 videoconference. 24

25 26 1 The parties request that the Court reschedule the ENE and CMC to November 19, 2025, or November 24, 2025. ECF No. 8 at 2. The Court does not have availability during the 27 timeframe requested and has rescheduled the ENE and CMC to the earliest date available 28 on its calendar. 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). Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, 13 Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595–97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs to call another person 14 who is not present on the videoconference before agreeing to any settlement does not 15 have full authority. 16 4. No later than December 17, 2025, the parties must each serve their first round 17 of written discovery. 18 5. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than 19 December 18, 2025, the parties shall submit confidential statements of five (5) pages or 20 less directly to the chambers of Magistrate Judge Goddard outlining the nature of the case, 21 the claims, and the defenses. These statements shall not be filed or served on opposing 22 counsel. They shall be lodged via email at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov. The ENE 23 statement is limited to five (5) pages or less. There is not a page limit on exhibits. Each 24 party’s ENE statement must outline: 25 A. the nature of the case and the claims, 26 B. position on liability or defense, 27 / / 28 / / 1 C. position regarding settlement of the case with a specific 2 demand/offer for settlement,3 3 D. any previous settlement negotiations or mediation efforts, and 4 E. confirmation of the date written discovery was served (see ¶ 4). 5 The Court may use GenAI tools to review the information that the parties submit. Either 6 party may object to the Court’s use of such tools by advising the Court’s law clerk of that 7 objection when they submit the information. The Court will respect that objection without 8 any further explanation, and the Court’s law clerk will only communicate to Judge Goddard 9 that there was an objection, not which party made the objection. 10 6. Case Management Conference: In the event the case does not settle at the 11 ENE, the Court will immediately thereafter hold a CMC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). 12 Appearance of the parties at the CMC is not required. The Court orders the following to 13 occur before the CMC: 14 A. The parties must meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no 15 later than December 1, 2025. 16 B. The parties must file a Joint Case Management Statement by 17 December 12, 2025. The Joint Case Management Statement must 18 address all points in the “Joint Case Management Statement 19 Requirements for Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard,” which can be 20 found on the court website at: 21 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Join 22 t%20Case%20Management%20Statement%20Rules.pdf. 23

24 25 2 A general statement, such as that a party “will negotiate in good faith,” is not a specific demand or offer. 26 27 3 If a specific demand or offer cannot be made at the time the ENE statement is submitted, then the reasons as to why a demand or offer cannot be made must be stated. Further, the 28 1 C. Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D) must occur by 2 December 15, 2025. 3 7. Appearances via Videoconference Required: All named parties, party 4 representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, as well as principal 5 attorney(s) responsible for the litigation must attend the ENE via videoconference. All who 6 attend the ENE must be legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case. 7 Counsel appearing without their clients (whether or not counsel has been given settlement 8 authority) will be subject to immediate imposition of sanctions. To facilitate the 9 videoconference ENE, the Court hereby orders as follows: 10 A. The Court will use its official Zoom video conferencing account to hold 11 the ENE.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lorena Covarrubias De Esquer v. Marriott Hotel Services, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lorena-covarrubias-de-esquer-v-marriott-hotel-services-llc-casd-2025.