Tagwerker v. Amazon.com Services LLC.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJune 27, 2024
Docket3:24-cv-00897
StatusUnknown

This text of Tagwerker v. Amazon.com Services LLC. (Tagwerker v. Amazon.com Services 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
Tagwerker v. Amazon.com Services LLC., (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MICHAEL TAGWERKER, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00897-H-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE EARLY 14 v. NEUTRAL EVALUATION 15 AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, et al., CONFERENCE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 16 Defendants.

17 [ECF No. 9]

18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the Early Neutral 20 Evaluation (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”) currently set for 21 July 10, 2024. ECF No 9. 22 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. ECF No. 3 at 6 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 FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court 26 may, for good cause, extend the time”). 27 Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., 28 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. 1 Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). 2 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural 3 and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 4 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 5 scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 6 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.... 7 If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 8 Here, the parties seek a continuance ENE for three reasons. First, the parties contend 9 that Plaintiff’s motion to remand necessitates a continuance because it would “potentially 10 spare the parties and the District Court from consuming time, effort, and resources in 11 preparing for and conducting the ENE,” since “the court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to 12 remand may eliminate further proceedings” in this court. ECF No. 9 at 2. Second, the 13 parties represent to the Court that Plaintiff is scheduled to have shoulder replacement 14 surgery on July 1, 2024, and will not be fully recovered in time for the July 10 ENE. Id. 15 Third, Plaintiff’s counsel notes that he needs more time to complete his initial disclosures, 16 due to delays in receiving information from various health care providers. Id. at 2–3. As 17 such, the parties request that the ENE and CMC be continued to a date after July 29, 2024. 18 Id. at 3. 19 The Court is unpersuaded that a pending motion to remand would provide good 20 cause for a continuance, and notes that it routinely holds ENEs and settlement conferences 21 with motions pending. However, the Court finds good cause for a continuance due to 22 Plaintiff’s shoulder surgery. As such, the joint motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: 23 1. The ENE originally scheduled for July 10, 2024, is RESET for 24 August 9, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. via videoconference before Magistrate Judge 25 Allison H. Goddard. In accordance with the Local Rules, the Court requires attendance of 26 all parties, party representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, and the 27 primary attorney(s) responsible for the litigation via videoconference. CivLR 16.1(c)(1). 28 / / 1 2. Purpose of the Conference: The purpose of the ENE is to permit an informal 2 discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in 3 an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case. All conference discussions will be 4 informal, off the record, and confidential. 5 3. Full Settlement Authority Required: A party or party representative with 6 full and complete authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present via 7 videoconference. Full authority to settle means that a person must be authorized to fully 8 explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to 9 the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 10 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the 11 settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. 12 Ariz. 2003). Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, 13 Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595–97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs to call another person 14 who is not present on the videoconference before agreeing to any settlement does not 15 have full authority. 16 4. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than August 2, 2024, the 17 parties shall submit confidential statements of five (5) pages or less directly to the chambers 18 of Magistrate Judge Goddard outlining the nature of the case, the claims, and the defenses. 19 These statements shall not be filed or served on opposing counsel. They shall be lodged 20 via email at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov. The ENE statement is limited to five (5) 21 pages or less, and up to five (5) pages of exhibits or declarations. Each party’s ENE 22 statement must outline: 23 A. the nature of the case and the claims, 24 B. position on liability or defense, 25 C. position regarding settlement of the case with a specific1 26

27 1 A general statement, such as that a party “will negotiate in good faith,” is a not a specific 28 1 demand/offer for settlement, and 2 D. any previous settlement negotiations or mediation efforts. 3 5. Case Management Conference: In the event the case does not settle at the 4 ENE, the Court will immediately thereafter hold a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) 5 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Appearance of the parties at the CMC is not required. 6 The Court orders the following to occur before the CMC: 7 A. The parties must meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no 8 later than June 17, 2024. The parties represented to the Court that they 9 completed this requirement on June 11, 2024. ECF No. 9-1 at 2. 10 B. The parties must file a Joint Case Management Statement by 11 August 1, 2024. The Joint Case Management Statement must address 12 all points in the “Joint Case Management Statement Requirements for 13 Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard,” which can be found on the 14 court website at: 15 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Join 16 t%20Case%20Management%20Statement%20Rules.pdf. 17 C. Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D) must occur by 18 July 29, 2024. 19 6. Appearances via Videoconference Required: All named parties, party 20 representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, as well as principal 21 attorney(s) responsible for the litigation must attend the ENE via videoconference. All who 22 attend the ENE must be legally and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case. 23 Counsel appearing without their clients (whether or not counsel has been given settlement 24 authority) will be subject to immediate imposition of sanctions. To facilitate the 25

26 27 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.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tagwerker v. Amazon.com Services LLC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tagwerker-v-amazoncom-services-llc-casd-2024.