Van Rooyen v. Effecture LLC.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJune 16, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-01025
StatusUnknown

This text of Van Rooyen v. Effecture LLC. (Van Rooyen v. Effecture 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
Van Rooyen v. Effecture 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 KARMIN VAN ROOYEN, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01025-JES-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE 14 v. EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION 15 EFFECTURE LLC and MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND CASE AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 16 INTERNATIONAL, INC., 17 [ECF No. 6] Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the Early Neutral 20 Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”) currently set 21 for July 8, 2025. ECF No. 6. 22 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 23 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 24 request”); see FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified 25 time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous 26 standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. 27 Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause 28 standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and 1 the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 2 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons 3 for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) 4 (internal citation omitted). 5 Here, the parties seek a two-to-four-week continuance of the ENE and CMC. ECF 6 No. 6. They explain that Defendant’s lead counsel is unavailable on July 8, 2025, the date 7 of ENE, because of a full-day mediation in another matter scheduled for the same date. Id. 8 at 3. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel is also unavailable on the ENE date because she will be 9 out of the office on an international vacation. Id. Plaintiff’s other counsel is also 10 unavailable, “due [to] an unrelated matter.” Id. The parties met and conferred, and found 11 five proposed dates to reschedule the ENE that worked with all parties’ and counsel’s 12 schedules, and have requested that the Court continue the ENE and CMC to July 23, 13 July 24, July 25, August 6, or August 7. Id. at 4. 14 Despite the joint motion’s shortcomings,1 upon due consideration, the Court finds 15 good cause for a continuance. As such, the Court GRANTS IN PART the parties’ joint 16 motion. ECF No. 6. Though the parties found dates that they were available to reschedule 17 the ENE, those dates are unavailable on the Court’s calendar. Court staff communicated 18 this with the parties via email, and confirmed that all parties and all counsel are available 19 on the instant alternative date. Email from Chambers (June 13, 2025, at 4:30 PM); Email 20 to Chambers (June 13, 2025, at 4:36 PM); Email to Chambers (June 16, 2025, at 5:02 PM). 21 Further, though the parties “intend to file their ENE Statements, along with the names and 22 titles of each participant, no later than July 1, 2025, the current due date[,]” (ECF No. 6 at 23 24 1 The Court notes that the parties failed to provide a declaration from counsel, as required 25 by the Court’s Chambers Rules. Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that the joint motion for continuance include a “declaration from counsel seeking the continuance that describes the 26 steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines, and the specific reasons why the 27 deadlines cannot be met”). The Court will take the parties at their word without the required declaration, but will not do so again. 28 1 4), the Court prefers that the parties use the additional time to continue propounding 2 discovery and discussing settlement, and thus has extended the pre-conference deadlines2 3 so that the ENE Statements can be fully up to date. The Court orders as follows: 4 1. The ENE and CMC originally scheduled for July 8, 2025, are RESET for 5 August 15, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. via videoconference before Magistrate Judge 6 Allison H. Goddard. In accordance with the Local Rules, the Court requires attendance of 7 all parties, party representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, and the 8 primary attorney(s) responsible for the litigation via videoconference. CivLR 16.1(c)(1). 9 2. Purpose of the Conference: The purpose of the ENE is to permit an informal 10 discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in 11 an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case. All conference discussions will be 12 informal, off the record, and confidential. 13 3. Full Settlement Authority Required: A party or party representative with 14 full and complete authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present via 15 videoconference. Full authority to settle means that a person must be authorized to fully 16 explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to 17 the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 18 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the 19 settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. 20 Ariz. 2003). Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, 21

22 23 2 The Court also notes that the first pre-conference deadline is for the parties to meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). This deadline was June 17, 2025. ECF No. 5 at 3. 24 The instant motion was filed on June 13, 2025. ECF No. 6. By filing the motion four days 25 before the affected deadline, the parties failed to follow the Court’s Chambers Rules. See Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that “[a]ll requests for continuances must be made by a joint 26 motion no less than seven calendar days before the affected date”) (emphasis added). 27 Though the Court could assume that the parties have already complied with the June 17, 2025, deadline, hence its omission from the instant motion, the Court nevertheless 28 1 Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595–97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs to call another person 2 who is not present on the videoconference before agreeing to any settlement does not 3 have full authority. 4 4. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than August 7, 2025, the 5 parties shall submit confidential statements of five (5) pages or less directly to the chambers 6 of Magistrate Judge Goddard outlining the nature of the case, the claims, and the defenses. 7 These statements shall not be filed or served on opposing counsel. They shall be lodged 8 via email at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov. The ENE statement is limited to five (5) 9 pages or less. There is not a page limit on exhibits. Each party’s ENE statement must 10 outline: 11 A. the nature of the case and the claims, 12 B. position on liability or defense, 13 C. position regarding settlement of the case with a specific3 14 demand/offer for settlement,4 and 15 D. any previous settlement negotiations or mediation efforts. 16 The Court may use GenAI tools to review the information that the parties submit. Either 17 party may object to the Court’s use of such tools by advising the Court’s law clerk of that 18 objection when they submit the information. The Court will respect that objection without 19 any further explanation, and the Court’s law clerk will only communicate to Judge Goddard 20 that there was an objection, not which party made the objection. 21 5.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Van Rooyen v. Effecture LLC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-rooyen-v-effecture-llc-casd-2025.