Paul Gois, et al. v. Kisco Senior Living, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedNovember 13, 2025
Docket3:24-cv-00751
StatusUnknown

This text of Paul Gois, et al. v. Kisco Senior Living, LLC (Paul Gois, et al. v. Kisco Senior Living, 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
Paul Gois, et al. v. Kisco Senior Living, 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 PAUL GOIS, et al., on behalf of Case No.: 3:24-cv-00751-BJC-AHG themselves and all others similarly 13 ORDER: situated,

14 Plaintiffs, (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 15 MOTION FOR CASE v. MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, 16 KISCO SENIOR LIVING, LLC, and 17 Defendant. (2) SETTING EARLY NEUTRAL 18 EVALUATION CONFERENCE AND 19 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 20

21 [ECF No. 41] 22 23 24 25 / / 26 27 / / 28 / / 1 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Case Management Conference (“CMC”). 2 ECF No. 41. Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court scheduling a CMC so that discovery 3 may commence in this action. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs explain that the current matter has been 4 pending for approximately eighteen months, and they wish to avoid further delay in 5 conducting discovery. Id. at 3–5. 6 “A party is generally not permitted to obtain discovery without a court order before 7 the parties have conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).” Satmodo v. 8 Whenever Commc’ns, No. 17cv192-AJB-NLS, 2017 WL 4557214, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 9 12, 2017) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 26(d)(1)); see CivLR 16.1(c) (ENEs occur within 45-days 10 of the defendant’s answer and the CMC, preceded by the Rule 26(f) conference, is held 11 within 30-days of the ENE). However, the Court has discretion to permit early or expedited 12 discovery upon a showing of good cause. See Fluke Elecs. Corp. v. CorDEX Instruments, 13 No. C12-2082-JLR, 2013 WL 566949, at *10 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2013) (“Courts within 14 the Ninth Circuit generally use a ‘good cause’ standard to determine whether to permit 15 discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference”); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 16 208 F.R.D. 273, 275–76 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (applying “the conventional standard of good 17 cause in evaluating Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery”). Good cause exists “where 18 the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, 19 outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276. “The court 20 must perform this evaluation in light of ‘the entirety of the record ... and the reasonableness 21 of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances.’” Facebook v. Various, Inc., 22 No. C-11-01805-SBA DMR, 2011 WL 2437433, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2011) (quoting 23 Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 275). 24 25 26 1 As the instant motion will be decided by the undersigned, the hearing date of 27 December 18, 2025, obtained from the Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks for purposes of issuing a briefing schedule on the instant motion is VACATED. Upon due consideration, 28 1 In its discretion, the Court finds good cause to GRANT Plaintiffs’ motion. ECF 2 No. 41. The instant matter commenced on April 26, 2024. ECF No. 1. In the time thereafter, 3 one motion to dismiss was filed, briefed, and decided; the complaint was thereafter 4 amended; and a second motion to dismiss is presently pending and fully briefed. ECF 5 Nos. 12, 17, 23, 34, 35, 38. The Court notes that “[a] pending motion to dismiss is not 6 dispositive to a finding of good cause for expedited discovery.” MedImpact Healthcare 7 Sys. v. IQVIA Holdings, Inc., No. 19-cv-1865-GPC-LL, 2019 WL 6310554, at *2 (S.D. 8 Cal. Nov. 25, 2019); see Hardie v. N.C.A.A., No. 13-cv-346-W-DHB, 2013 WL 1399333, 9 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2013) (recognizing that motion to dismiss may weigh against 10 expedited discovery in some cases, but granting expedited discovery request even with a 11 pending motion to dismiss); Quintero Family Tr. v. Onewest Bank, F.S.B., No. 09-cv-1561- 12 IEG-AJB, 2009 WL 3381804, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2009) (granting expedited discovery 13 request when a motion to dismiss was pending). Upon consideration of the entirety of the 14 record and the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ request in light of all the surrounding 15 circumstances, the Court finds good cause, as the Court wishes to avoid further delay. The 16 Court also finds that discussions regarding settlement and discovery will be beneficial to 17 the parties at this time. As such, the Court orders as follows: 18 1. IT IS ORDERED that an Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) of your case will 19 be held on December 4, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. via videoconference before Magistrate Judge 20 Allison H. Goddard. Based upon the Court’s familiarity with class actions, and in the 21 interest of promoting the just, efficient, and economical determination of this action, the 22 Court issues the following Mandatory Procedures to be followed in preparation for the 23 ENE: 24 2. Purpose of the Conference: The purpose of the ENE is to permit an informal 25 discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in 26 an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case. All conference discussions will be 27 informal, off the record, and confidential. Although the Court understands that it is rare 28 for class actions to settle at such an early stage, the ENE process can be effective in 1 identifying when settlement discussions will be most fruitful; whether the parties are 2 interested in private mediation or a more fulsome settlement conference before the Court; 3 and what information needs to be exchanged through informal discovery, or obtained 4 through formal discovery, to have an effective settlement discussion. 5 3. Attendance: The Court requires the attendance of the primary attorney(s) 6 responsible for the litigation via videoconference. Named parties, party representatives, 7 and claims adjusters for insured defendants are welcome, but not required, to attend. The 8 Court notes that the ENE will last approximately one hour. 9 4. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than December 2, 2025, 10 the parties shall submit confidential statements of five (5) pages or less directly to the 11 chambers of Magistrate Judge Goddard outlining the nature of the case, the claims, and the 12 defenses. These statements shall not be filed or served on opposing counsel. They shall 13 be lodged via email at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov. The ENE statement is limited to 14 five (5) pages or less. There is not a page limit on exhibits. Each party’s ENE statement 15 must outline: 16 A. the nature of the case and the claims, including any other pending 17 actions that could impact the scope of the proposed class; 18 B. position on liability or defense; 19 C. any previous settlement negotiations or mediation efforts; 20 D. whether the party is willing to participate in an early settlement 21 conference or private mediation, including an informal exchange of 22 information; and 23 E. if the party is not interested in early settlement discussions, an 24 explanation of what discovery is necessary before engaging in 25 settlement discussions and the party’s position as to when settlement 26 negotiations would be most effective. 27 The Court may use GenAI tools to review the information that the parties submit. Either 28 party may object to the Court’s use of such tools by advising the Court’s law clerk of that 1 objection when they submit the information. The Court will respect that objection without 2 any further explanation, and the Court’s law clerk will only communicate to Judge Goddard 3 that there was an objection, not which party made the objection. 4 5. Case Management Conference: In the event the case does not settle at the 5 ENE, the Court will immediately thereafter hold a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) 6 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The Court orders the following to occur before the CMC: 7 A. The parties must meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

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

Related

Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc.
208 F.R.D. 273 (N.D. California, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Paul Gois, et al. v. Kisco Senior Living, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-gois-et-al-v-kisco-senior-living-llc-casd-2025.