Ochoa v. Von Lintig

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedFebruary 18, 2021
Docket3:19-cv-00346
StatusUnknown

This text of Ochoa v. Von Lintig (Ochoa v. Von Lintig) 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
Ochoa v. Von Lintig, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY ERNEST OCHOA, Case No.: 19-cv-00346-MMA-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION 14 CARLA FRIEDERIKE VON LINTIG, TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 15 Defendant. ORDER; AND

16 (2) ISSUING AMENDED 17 SCHEDULING ORDER

18 [ECF Nos. 43; 45] 19 20 Before the Court is Defendant Carla Friederike Von Lintig’s second Ex Parte 21 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 45.) Defendant requests a sixty-day 22 extension of the March 1, 2021 discovery cutoff and the March 29, 2021 pretrial motions 23 deadline and a continuance of the March 11, 2021 Mandatory Settlement Conference. (Id. 24 at 1.) Defendant provides that good cause exists for the requested extensions and 25 continuance because Plaintiff failed to appear for his deposition, which was noticed for 26 January 12, 2021. (Id. at 2.) Defendant further provides that Plaintiff has secured counsel, 27 but his counsel has not yet appeared in the case. (Id.) 28 /// 1 For good cause shown, Defendant’s ex parte motion (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED, 2 and the operative Scheduling Order (ECF No. 43) is amended as follows: 3 1. A telephonic, counsel-only Status Conference shall be held before 4 Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on March 3, 2021, at 2:00 PM. For purposes of the 5 Status Conference, counsel for Plaintiff and defense counsel shall call the Court’s 6 teleconference line at (877) 873-8018 and use access code 9930765. 7 2. All discovery shall be completed on or before April 30, 2021. “Completed” 8 means that all discovery under Rules 30–36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 9 discovery subpoenas under Rule 45 must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance 10 of the cut-off date so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the 11 times for services, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 The parties or their counsel, if represented, shall promptly and in good faith meet 13 and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). 14 The Court expects counsel and the parties to make every effort to resolve all disputes 15 without court intervention through the meet and confer process. Discovery motions must 16 be filed in the time and manner directed by Judge Burkhardt (see Judge Burkhardt’s Civil 17 Chambers Rules on Discovery Disputes). All discovery motions must be filed within 30 18 days of the service of an objection, answer, or response that becomes the subject of dispute 19 or the passage of a discovery due date without response or production, and only after 20 counsel have met and conferred to resolve the dispute and requested an informal 21 teleconference with the Court. 22 3. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on May 6, 2021, 23 at 9:00 AM in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, Edward J. Schwartz 24 U.S. Courthouse, 221 West Broadway, Suite 5140, San Diego, California 92101. If 25 Plaintiff is incarcerated, Plaintiff shall appear at the settlement conference by video 26 conference, and defense counsel shall assist in coordinating the arrangements for Plaintiff’s 27 video conference appearance. If Plaintiff is not incarcerated, Plaintiff shall attend the 28 settlement conference in person. 1 The parties or their counsel, if represented, shall LODGE confidential settlement 2 statements in accordance with Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules no later than 3 April 26, 2021. The confidential settlement statements should be lodged by e-mail to 4 efile_Burkhardt@casd.uscourts.gov. However, if e-mail is unavailable, settlement 5 conference statements may be lodged by mail to the U.S. District Court, Southern District 6 of California, Office of the Clerk, Attn: Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s Chambers, 333 West 7 Broadway, Suite 420, San Diego, California 92101. Settlement conference statements 8 shall not be filed via the CM/ECF system. Settlement conference statements may be 9 exchanged confidentially with opposing counsel within the parties’ discretion. 10 Each party’s settlement statement shall concisely set forth the following: (1) the 11 party’s statement of the case; (2) the controlling legal issues; (3) issues of liability and 12 damages; (4) the party’s settlement position, including the last offer or demand made by 13 that party; (5) a separate statement of the offer or demand the party is prepared to make at 14 the settlement conference; and (6) a list of all attorney and non-attorney attendees for the 15 Conference, including person(s) and their title(s) or position(s) with the party who will 16 attend and have settlement authority at the conference. 17 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.3, all party representatives and claims adjusters for 18 insured defendants with full and unlimited authority1 to negotiate and enter into a binding 19 settlement, as well as the principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation, must be present 20 and legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case at the mandatory 21

22 1 “Full authority to settle” means that the individuals at the settlement conference must 23 be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement 24 terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to 25 change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 26 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement authority to attend the conference includes that the person’s view of the case may be altered 27 during the face to face conference. Id. at 486. A limited or a sum certain of authority is 28 not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2001). 1 settlement conference. In the case of a corporate entity, an authorized representative of the 2 corporation who is not retained outside counsel must be present and must have 3 discretionary authority to commit the company to pay an amount up to the amount of the 4 Plaintiff’s prayer, excluding punitive damages prayers. The purpose of this requirement is 5 to have representatives present who can settle the case during the course of the conference 6 without consulting a superior. 7 Failure to attend the conference or obtain proper excuse will be considered 8 grounds for sanctions. 9 4. All dispositive pretrial motions, including motions for summary judgment and 10 motions addressing Daubert issues, must be filed by May 28, 2021.2 Counsel for the 11 moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from Judge Anello’s law clerk. The period 12 of time between the date you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary from 13 one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure to make a timely request 14 for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 15 5. If appropriate, following the filing of an order ruling on a motion for summary 16 judgment or other dispositive pretrial motion, or in the event no such motion is filed, after 17 the expiration of the deadline set forth in paragraph 4, supra, Judge Anello will issue a 18 pretrial scheduling order setting a pretrial conference, trial date, and all related pretrial 19 deadlines. The parties must review and be familiar with Judge Anello’s Civil Chambers 20 Rules, which provide additional information regarding pretrial scheduling.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ochoa v. Von Lintig, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ochoa-v-von-lintig-casd-2021.