Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California partially granted the parties’ joint motion to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference. The court found good cause based on the unavailability of the defendant’s representative, while criticizing the parties for failing to comply with procedural requirements for continuance motions. The court reset the ENE for May 3, 2023, and specified attendance, settlement-authority, confidentiality, submission, and videoconference requirements.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the parties established good cause to continue the scheduled Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, Case Management Conference, and related deadlines.
- What attendance, settlement-authority, statement-submission, and videoconference requirements should govern the continued ENE.
Holdings
- A party seeking to continue an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference must demonstrate good cause, and the court found good cause after considering supplemental information explaining Defendant's representative's unavailability.
- The continued ENE required attendance by all parties, party representatives with full and complete settlement authority, applicable claims adjusters, and primary litigation counsel, with participation by videoconference and compliance with the court's confidential statement and procedural requirements.
Key quotations
“"Good cause" is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts.” (at 1)
“Full authority to settle means that a person must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties.” (at 3)
“A person who needs to call another person who is not present on the videoconference before agreeing to any settlement does not have full authority.” (at 3)
Factual background
The parties sought to continue an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference because Defendant's representative was unavailable to attend the scheduled ENE. The motion was filed on the same date that confidential ENE statements and participant lists were due, did not include the declaration required by the court's Chambers Rules and prior order, and initially provided insufficient factual detail to establish good cause.
Procedural history
The parties' joint motion was filed in the Southern District of California on March 2, 2023, one day before the scheduled March 9 ENE and on the deadline for ENE statements and participant lists. The court found the motion deficient in several respects but, after receiving supplemental information from Defendant regarding its representative's personal commitments, found good cause to continue the ENE and CMC and imposed revised dates and mandatory participation procedures.