Morgan v. Rohr, Inc.

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL MORGAN, et al., Case No.: 20cv574-GPC (AHG)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION TO 13 v. CONTINUE DECEMBER 10, 2024 SETTLEMENT DISPOSITION CONFERENCE 14 ROHR, INC., et al., [ECF NO. 321] 15 Defendants. 16 17

18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ “Joint Stipulation to Continue December 19 10, 2024 Settlement Disposition Conference.” (ECF No. 321 (“Joint Motion”).) In 20 support of their third request, the parties report that they are continuing to meet and 21 confer on finalizing the long-form settlement agreement, particularly in light of the 22 Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel’s decision in Hudson v. Libre Technology Inc., No. 18cv1371, 23 2019 WL 5963648, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2019). (Id. at 1.) The Court notes that the 24 parties belatedly made this request, since they filed this Joint Motion on the day the 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 || motion for preliminary approval of class settlement was due.* Moving forward, if the 2 || parties need further continuances for the Settlement Disposition Conference (“SDC”) 3 related deadlines, they must comply with Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg’s Civil 4 ||Chambers Rule V. Nonetheless, the Court finds good cause here and GRANTS the Joint 5 || Motion as follows: 6 The SDC currently scheduled for December 10, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. is CONTINUED 7 February 10, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. If the parties file the motion for preliminary approval 8 || of class settlement on or before February 3, 2025, the SDC will be VACATED without 9 || further court order.’ If the parties fail to file the motion for preliminary approval of 10 || class settlement by the deadline, or if counsel of record or any unrepresented party fails 11 || to appear at the SDC, the Court will issue an order to show cause why sanctions should 12 be imposed for failing to comply with this Order. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: December 4, 2024 —> □□ 15 : 16 Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 Although this Joint Motion was filed as a stipulation, the United States District Court, Southern District of California’s Local Rules state that such stipulations are not enforceable until the Court 26 || approves. See CivLR 7.2. A proposed order granting the joint motion must be e-mailed to the assigned district judge’s 27 || chambers on the same day. The proposed order must be e-mailed pursuant to section 2(h) of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative 28 Policies and Procedures Manual, available at www.casd.uscourts.gov.