Paige Gourley v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Asheville LLC, Amrik Basi, and Kevin Lowitz

District Court, S.D. California·Decided April 21, 2026·No. 3:26-cv-01917·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 PAIGE GOURLEY, Case No.: 3:26-cv-01917-AJB-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE EARLY 14 v. NEUTRAL EVALUATION ASHEVILLE LLC, AMRIK BASI, and MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 16 KEVIN LOWITZ, 17 [ECF No. 13] Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the Early Neutral 23 Evaluation (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”) currently set for 24 April 27, 2026. ECF No. 13. 25 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 26 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 27 request”); ECF No. 10 at 6 (same); see FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be 28 done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). Courts have 1 broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. 2 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Olvera v. Citibank, N.A., 3 No. 25-cv-789-H-AHG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117769, at *2, *4–*5 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 4 2025). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 5 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 6 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 7 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d 8 at 609 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 9 modification.... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). Therefore, “a party 10 demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the 11 court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. 16-cv-1103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 12 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). 13 Here, the parties represent to the Court that Plaintiff is unavailable on April 27, 2026, 14 because she has a previously-scheduled business conference in Belgium that cannot be 15 missed without significant hardship. ECF No. 13-1 at 2; ECF No. 13 at 2. The parties 16 represent that, “[w]ithout Plaintiff’s presence and meaningful participation, the ENE 17 cannot serve its intended purpose of facilitating early resolution of this matter.” ECF 18 No. 13 at 2. As such, the parties request a continuance of the ENE and CMC. Id. 19 As an initial matter, the parties’ Joint Case Management Statement was due on 20 April 20, 2026; however, to date, no Joint Statement has been filed. ECF No. 10 at 3. The 21 Court expresses its concern that the parties have not complied with the Court-ordered 22 pre-conference deadlines, belying a finding of diligence. See Merck, 2018 WL 4492362, at 23 *2 (“a party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines 24 set forth by the court”); see also ECF No. 13 at 2–3 (asserting that the request for 25 continuance would not impact case management dates). 26 Despite the noted shortcomings, the Court appreciates that the parties have been 27 working together, agrees that Plaintiff’s active participation is crucial, and finds good cause 28 to GRANT the joint motion (ECF No. 13) as follows: 1 1. The ENE and CMC scheduled for April 27, 2026, are RESET for 2 May 6, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard via videoconference. 3 2. In accordance with the Local Rules, the Court requires attendance of all 4 named parties, party representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, and 5 the primary attorney(s) responsible for the litigation via videoconference. CivLR 6 16.1(c)(1). 7 3. Purpose of the Conference: The purpose of the ENE is to permit an informal 8 discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in 9 an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case. All conference discussions will be 10 informal, off the record, and confidential. 11 4. Full Settlement Authority Required: A party or party representative with 12 full and complete authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present via 13 videoconference. Full authority to settle means that a person must be authorized to fully 14 explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to 15 the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 16 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the 17 settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. 18 Ariz. 2003). Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, 19 Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595–97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs to call another person 20 who is not present on the videoconference before agreeing to any settlement does not 21 have full authority. 22 5. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than April 30, 2026, the 23 parties shall submit confidential statements of five (5) pages or less directly to the chambers 24 of Magistrate Judge Goddard outlining the nature of the case, the claims, and the defenses. 25 These statements shall not be filed or served on opposing counsel. They shall be lodged 26 via email at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov. The ENE statement is limited to five (5) 27 pages or less. There is not a page limit on exhibits. Each party’s ENE statement must 28 outline: 1 A. the nature of the case and the claims, 2 B. position on liability or defense, 3 C. position regarding settlement of the case with a specific1 4 demand/offer for settlement,2 and 5 D. any previous settlement negotiations or mediation efforts. 6 The Court may use GenAI tools to review the information that the parties submit. Either 7 party may object to the Court’s use of such tools by advising the Court’s law clerk of that 8 objection when they submit the information. The Court will respect that objection without 9 any further explanation, and the Court’s law clerk will only communicate to Judge Goddard 10 that there was an objection, not which party made the objection. 11 6. Case Management Conference: In the event the case does not settle at the 12 ENE, the Court will immediately thereafter hold a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) 13 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Appearance of the parties at the CMC is not required. 14 The Court orders the following to occur before the CMC: 15 A. The April 13, 2026, deadline for the parties to meet and confer pursuant 16 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) remains unchanged. See ECF No. 10 at 3. 17 B. In light of the parties’ failure to comply with the Court’s April 20, 2026, 18 deadline, (see ECF No. 10 at 3), the Court sua sponte grants a brief 19 continuance as follows: The parties must file a Joint Case Management 20 Statement as soon as possible, and no later than April 27, 2026. The 21 Joint Case Management Statement must address all points in the “Joint 22 Case Management Statement Requirements for Magistrate Judge 23

24 25 1 A general statement, such as that a party “will negotiate in good faith,” is not a specific demand or offer. 26 2 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. Further, the 28 party must explain when they will be in a position to state a demand or offer.

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

Paige Gourley v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Asheville LLC, Amrik Basi, and Kevin Lowitz, (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Paige Gourley v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Asheville LLC, Amrik Basi, and Kevin Lowitz (Paige Gourley v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Asheville LLC, Amrik Basi, and Kevin Lowitz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related