Singletary v. G6 Hospitality LLC

District Court, S.D. California·Decided July 10, 2020·No. 3:20-cv-00270·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ANGELIQUE SINGLETARY, on behalf Case No.: 3:20-cv-00270-LAB-AHG of herself and all persons similarly 12 ORDER: situated,

13 Plaintiff, (1) GRANTING IN PART AND 14 DENYING IN PART MOTION TO v. CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL 15 G6 HOSPITALITY LLC, MOTEL 6 EVALUATION (“ENE”) AND CASE 16 OPERATING L.P., and DOES 1-50, MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE inclusive, (“CMC”); 17

Defendants. 18 (2) CONTINUING ENE; and

19 (3) MODIFYING CMC TO BE

21 [ECF No. 17] 22 23 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the 24 Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”), Case Management Conference (“CMC”), 25 and Corresponding Deadlines, filed on July 7, 2020. ECF No. 17. For the reasons that 26 follow, the Court (1) GRANTS the request to continue the ENE; (2) RESETS the ENE 27 for October 6, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to take place via videoconference; (3) DENIES the 28 request to continue the CMC; and (4) MODIFIES the CMC to take place telephonically. 1 On February 18, 2020, the Court initially scheduled the ENE and CMC to take 2 place on April 8, 2020 before the Hon. Allison H. Goddard. ECF No. 10. On March 30, 3 2020, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion (ECF No. 12) to continue the ENE and 4 CMC, because they had scheduled a private mediation before the Hon. Peter D. Lichtman 5 (Ret.) for June 24, 2020. ECF No. 14. The Court reset the ENE and CMC for July 16, 6 2020 at 2:00 p.m., and required the parties to exchange certain discovery in accordance 7 with their Joint Mediation Plan by May 27, 2020. Id. 8 In the present motion, the parties seek a second continuance of the ENE and CMC 9 until October. ECF No. 17 at 3. In support, the parties explain that they have rescheduled 10 the private mediation before Judge Lichtman for September 22, 2020, in order to give 11 Defendants sufficient time to file a cross-complaint against third party InfoMart, Inc., and 12 because the parties recently learned new information during the parties’ informal pre- 13 mediation discovery exchange. Id. at 2. Accordingly, the parties contend that continuing 14 the ENE and CMC “will allow Defendants to file and serve their cross-claim against 15 InfoMart, as well as allow the parties, including InfoMart, a meaningful opportunity to 16 informally exchange information and documents to settle this matter without the burden 17 or expense of exchanging formal discovery, appearing at an ENE, or engaging judicial 18 resources.” Id. at 2-3. 19 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. ECF No. 10 at 4 20 (“An ENE may be rescheduled only upon a showing of good cause”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating 21 that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”); see 22 also Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 23 the judge’s consent”). 24 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 25 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 26 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 27 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 28 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 1 Here, the Court finds the parties have shown good cause to continue the ENE, so 2 that Defendants have an opportunity to file their intended cross-complaint and the parties 3 are able to pursue private mediation before engaging in the Court process. Accordingly, 4 the motion to continue the ENE is GRANTED. 5 The ENE is CONTINUED to October 6, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. and will take place via 6 videoconference. The Court issues the following Mandatory Procedures to be followed 7 in preparation for the ENE: 8 1. Purpose of the Conference: The purpose of the ENE is to permit an informal 9 discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in 10 an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case. All conference discussions will be 11 informal, off the record, and confidential. 12 2. Full Settlement Authority Required: A party or party representative with 13 full and complete authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present via 14 videoconference or immediately available to join. Full authority to settle means that a 15 person must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to 16 any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat 17 Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion 18 and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 19 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. 20 Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595–97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs 21 to call another person who is not present on the videoconference before agreeing to 22 any settlement does not have full authority. 23 3. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than October 1, 2020, 24 the parties shall submit confidential statements of five (5) pages or less directly to the 25 chambers of Magistrate Judge Goddard outlining the nature of the case, the claims, and the 26 defenses. These statements shall not be filed or served on opposing counsel. They shall 27 be lodged via email at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov. The ENE statement is limited to 28 five (5) pages or less, and up to five (5) pages of exhibits or declarations. Each party’s 1 ENE statement must outline: 2 A. the nature of the case and the claims, 3 B. position on liability or defense, 4 C. position regarding settlement of the case with a specific1 5 demand/offer for settlement,2 and 6 D. any previous settlement negotiations or mediation efforts. 7 4. Appearances via Videoconference Required: All named parties, party 8 representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, as well as principal 9 attorney(s) responsible for the litigation must attend the ENE via videoconference. All who 10 attend the ENE must be legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case. 11 Counsel appearing without their clients (whether or not counsel has been given settlement 12 authority) will be subject to immediate imposition of sanctions. To facilitate the 13 videoconference ENE, the Court hereby orders as follows: 14 A. The Court will use its official Zoom video conferencing account to hold 15 the ENE. If you are unfamiliar with Zoom: Zoom is available on 16 computers through a download on the Zoom website 17 (https://zoom.us/meetings) or on mobile devices through the 18 installation of a free app.3 Joining a Zoom conference does not require 19 creating a Zoom account, but it does require downloading the .exe file 20 (if using a computer) or the app (if using a mobile device). Participants 21

22 23 1 A general statement, such as that a party “will negotiate in good faith,” is a not a specific demand or offer. 24

25 2 If a specific demand or offer cannot be made at the time the ENE statement is submitted, then the reasons as to why a demand or offer cannot be made must be stated. Further, the 26 party must explain when they will be in a position to state a demand or offer. 27 3 If possible, participants are encouraged to use laptops or desktop computers for the video conference, rather than mobile devices.

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

Singletary v. G6 Hospitality LLC, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Singletary v. G6 Hospitality LLC (Singletary v. G6 Hospitality LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related