Raya v. Barka

District Court, S.D. California·Decided June 29, 2021·No. 3:19-cv-02295·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT RAYA, Case No.: 3:19-cv-2295-WQH-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE 13 v. EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION 14 DAVID BARKA; NOORI BARKA; CONFERENCE AND CASE EVELYN BARKA; CALBIOTECH, MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 15 INC.; CALBIOTECH, INC. 401(k) 16 PROFIT SHARING PLAN; and [ECF No. 48] CALBIOTECH, INC. PENSION PLAN, 17 Defendants. 18

19 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation 20 Conference (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”), currently scheduled for 21 August 27, 2020. ECF No. 48. 22 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. ECF No. 47 at 7 23 (“An ENE may be rescheduled only upon a showing of good cause”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating 24 that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”); see, 25 e.g., FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the 26 court may, for good cause, extend the time”). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that 27 has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon 28 1 Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on 2 the diligence of the party seeking to continue the conference and the reasons for seeking 3 modification. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 4 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 5 modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation 6 omitted). 7 Here, the parties have represented to the Court that Defendant’s insurance carrier is 8 unavailable to attend the ENE. See generally ECF No. 48 at 2. Therefore, the parties seek 9 a continuance of the ENE, CMC, and related deadlines. Id. The parties identified mutually 10 available dates in September. Id. 11 As an initial matter, the parties’ motion is deficient. The parties’ motion failed to 12 include specific facts or any framework for a finding of diligence. The motion merely 13 recounts that they seek a continuance “due to the unavailability of certain participants on 14 Defendants’ side who are required to attend the ENE[.]” ECF No. 48 at 2. Without more, 15 this is simply insufficient. However, court staff reached out to the parties for more detailed 16 reasoning for the requested continuance, and the parties responded that “coverage counsel 17 for Defendants’ insurance carrier in this matter[] will be unavailable to attend the ENE on 18 Aug. 27, 2021. He will be out of his home state on a family vacation that day, which was 19 planned and booked in advance of the ENE being set by Judge Goddard. Unfortunately, no 20 one else is able to fill in for [him] at the ENE.” Email to Chambers (June 28, 2021 at 21 8:26 p.m.). This information should have been included in the required declaration.1 22 Despite the joint motion’s shortcomings, upon receipt of the supplemental 23

24 25 1 The parties also failed to provide a declaration from counsel, as required by the Court’s Chambers Rules and the Court’s June 17 Order. Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that the joint 26 motion for continuance include a “declaration from counsel seeking the continuance that 27 describes the steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines, and the specific reasons why the deadlines cannot be met”) (emphasis added); ECF No. 47 at 7 (same). 28 1 information, the Court finds good cause to continue the ENE and CMC. As such, the 2 parties’ joint motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: 3 1. The ENE, originally scheduled for August 27, 2021, is hereby RESET for 4 August 23, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. Since the ENE 5 has been rescheduled, each party’s ENE Statements and Participant Information Lists are 6 now due no later than August 17, 2021. These statements lists must conform with the 7 requirements set forth in the Court’s original order setting ENE. See ECF No. 47 at 3, 6. 8 All other deadlines and procedures set forth in the Court’s original Order setting the ENE 9 and CMC remain in place. For the parties’ convenience, the Court will restate the 10 Mandatory Procedures to be followed in preparation for the ENE: 11 2. In accordance with the Local Rules, the Court requires personal attendance of 12 all parties, party representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, and the 13 primary attorney(s) responsible for the litigation. CivLR 16.1(a). However, due to the 14 current COVID-19 public emergency,2 and upon due consideration, the Court hereby 15 MODIFIES the ENE to be via videoconference for all attendees. 16 3. Purpose of the Conference: The purpose of the ENE is to permit an informal 17 discussion between the attorneys, pro se parties, and the settlement judge of every aspect 18 of the lawsuit in an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case. All conference 19 discussions will be informal, off the record, and confidential. 20 21 22 2 On March 2, 2021, Chief Judge Dana M. Sabraw issued an Order in response to the 23 COVID-19 public emergency (“CJO #62”) which, among other things, suspends the requirement under Civil Local Rule 16.1(a) that ENEs be conducted in person. See CJO 24 #62 at 1. CJO #62 is available on the Court website at 25 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/rules/Chief%20Judge%20Order%2062%20- %20Civil%20Case%20Proceedings%20During%20the%20Covid- 26 19%20Public%20Emergency.pdf. The suspension of the requirement under Civil Local 27 Rule 16.1(a) that ENEs be conducted in person is also reiterated by CJO #62-B, filed on June 11, 2021. CJO #62-B is available on the Court website at 28 1 4. Full Settlement Authority Required: A party or party representative with 2 full and complete authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present via 3 videoconference or immediately available to join. Full authority to settle means that a 4 person must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to 5 any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat 6 Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion 7 and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 8 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. 9 Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595–97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs 10 to call another person who is not present on the videoconference before agreeing to 11 any settlement does not have full authority. 12 5. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than August 17, 2021, 13 the parties shall submit confidential statements of five (5) pages or less directly to the 14 chambers of Magistrate Judge Goddard outlining the nature of the case, the claims, and the 15 defenses. These statements shall not be filed or served the opposing side. They shall 16 be lodged via email at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov. The ENE statement is limited to 17 five (5) pages or less, and up to five (5) pages of exhibits or declarations. Each party’s 18 ENE statement must outline: 19 A. the nature of the case and the claims, 20 B. position on liability or defense, 21 C. position regarding settlement of the case with a specific3 22 demand/offer for settlement,4 and 23

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

Raya v. Barka, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Raya v. Barka (Raya v. Barka) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related