Miller v. Nature's Path Foods, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 12, 2024
• Docket: 4:23-cv-05711
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IAN MILLER, Case No. 23-cv-05711-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT 10 NATURE’S PATH FOODS, INC., CONFERENCE 11 Defendant. Re: ECF No. 26

12 13 Now before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to continue the February 20, 14 2024 case management conference. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion. 15 First, Defendant’s new counsel was engaged less than a month ago. Regardless of what 16 may have transpired before that time or what agreements may have been reached with prior 17 counsel, ordinary professional courtesy would suggest that—except in an emergency—a modest 18 extension of the existing deadlines would be appropriate to allow new counsel to get up to speed. 19 There is nothing emergent about Plaintiff’s claims, which “seek redress for [Defendant’s] 20 unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing of Defendant’s breakfast and snack 21 products that make protein claims on the front of the product packages but fail to include the 22 percent of daily value for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. 23 Second, as Defendant notes, the Court often continues case management conferences when 24 motions to dismiss are pending, including on its own motion. ECF No. 26 at 4 & n.2 (noting that 25 “this Court regularly grants stipulations to continue the initial case management conference (like 26 the one sought here by Defendant from Plaintiff), including those continuing it to a time after a 27 ruling on motions to dismiss,” and that the “Court has also, on its own motion, continued initial 1 contention. 2 Third, Plaintiff disadvantages itself by not suggesting some amount of additional amount 3 of extension it could live with, thereby forcing the Court to choose between Defendant’s proposal 4 || to continue the case management conference “to a time after the Court rules on Nature’s Path’s 5 pending motion to dismiss (or an amended motion), or in the alternative, by at least forty-five (45) 6 || days,” ECF No. 26 at 2, and Plaintiff's proposal to provide no continuance at all. The Court often 7 || makes scheduling decisions on a baseball arbitration basis. See Michael Carrell & Richard Bales, 8 Considering Final Offer Arbitration to Resolve Public Sector Impasses in Times of Concession 9 || Bargaining, 28 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 1, 20 (2013) (“In baseball arbitration . . . the parties . . . 10 || have every incentive to make a reasonable proposal to the arbitrator because the arbitrator will 11 choose the more reasonable offer.”); see also CPC Pat. Techs. PTY Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., No. 21-mc- 12 80091-JST, 2023 WL 3579314, at *6 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2023) (citing Carrell & Bales). The 5 13 Court applies that model here. 14 For all these reasons, Defendant’s request is granted. The February 20, 2024 case 3 15 management conference is continued to June 18, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. An updated joint case a 16 management statement is due June 11, 2024. IT IS SO ORDERED. || Datea: February 12, 2024 .

19 JON S. TIGAR 20 nited States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28