Saint Onge Orchids, LLC v. San Diego, County of et al

Filing 8

ORDER Granting Joint 6 Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference. The ENE Conference is continued to June 14, 2017, at 9:00 AM. In the event the case does not settle at the ENE Conference a Case Management Conference will be held at the conclusion of the ENE Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 4/7/17. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 Saint Onge Orchids, LLC, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 Case No.: 17-cv-00638-GPC-JLB ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RELATED DATES v. County of San Diego, et al., Defendants. 11 12 [ECF No. 6] 13 14 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation 15 and Case Management Conference and Related Dates. (ECF No. 6.) The parties seek to 16 continue the April 26, 2017 Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) and Case Management 17 Conferences and all related dates by 60 days. (Id. at 2.) For good cause shown, the Joint 18 Motion is GRANTED in part. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 19 1. The ENE Conference set for April 26, 2017, at 1:45 PM in the Chambers of 20 Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, Edward J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse, 221 West 21 Broadway, Suite 5140, San Diego, California 92101, is CONTINUED to June 14, 2017, 22 at 9:00 AM. In the event the case does not settle at the ENE Conference, a Case 23 Management Conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) will be held at the conclusion 24 of the ENE Conference. 25 2. Personal Appearance of Parties Required: All parties, adjusters for insured 26 defendants, and other representatives of a party having full settlement authority as 27 explained below, and the principal attorneys responsible for the litigation, must be present 28 in person and legally and factually prepared to discuss settlement of the case. Counsel 1 17-cv-00638-GPC-JLB 1 appearing without their clients (whether or not counsel has been given settlement authority) 2 will be cause for immediate imposition of sanctions and may also result in the immediate 3 termination of the ENE Conference. If each of the principal attorneys responsible for the 4 litigation is not listed on the docket as an “ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED,” then they each 5 shall enter their appearance on the docket as soon as practicable, but in no event later than 6 ten calendar days prior to the ENE Conference. 7 Unless there are extraordinary circumstances, persons required to attend the ENE 8 Conference pursuant to this Order shall not be excused from personal attendance. 9 Requests for excuse from attendance for extraordinary circumstances shall be filed 10 as a motion at least ten calendar days prior to the conference. Failure to appear at the 11 ENE Conference will be grounds for sanctions. 12 3. Full Settlement Authority Required: In addition to counsel who will try the 13 case, a party or party representative with full settlement authority1 must be present for the 14 ENE Conference. In the case of an entity, an authorized representative of the entity who 15 is not retained outside counsel must be present and must have discretionary authority to 16 commit the company to pay an amount up to the amount of the Plaintiff’s prayer (excluding 17 punitive damages prayers). The purpose of this requirement is to have representatives 18 present who can settle the case during the course of the ENE Conference without consulting 19 a superior. 20 21 4. ENE Statements Required: On or before June 5, 2017, the parties shall lodge statements of five pages or less directly to the chambers of Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “Full settlement authority” means that the individuals at the settlement conference must be authorized to explore settlement options fully and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with unlimited settlement authority to attend the conference contemplates that the person’s view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. Id. at 486. A limited or a sum certain of authority is not adequate. See Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595-97 (8th Cir. 2001). 1 2 17-cv-00638-GPC-JLB 1 Burkhardt outlining the nature of the case, the claims, the defenses, and the parties’ 2 positions regarding settlement of the case. The settlement position must include a specific 3 and current demand or offer addressing all relief or remedies sought. If a specific demand 4 or offer cannot be made at the time the brief is submitted, then the reasons therefor must 5 be stated along with a statement as to when the party will be in a position to state a demand 6 or offer. A general statement that a party will “negotiate in good faith,” “offer a nominal 7 cash sum,” or “be prepared to make an offer at the conference” is not a specific demand or 8 offer. The statement shall also list all attorney and non-attorney conference attendees for 9 that side, including the name(s) and title(s)/position(s) of the party/party representative(s) 10 who will attend and have settlement authority at the conference. 11 ENE statements shall be lodged via email at If 12 exhibits are attached and the total submission amounts to more than 20 pages, a hard copy 13 must also be delivered directly to chambers. Whether these statements are submitted 14 confidentially or whether they are served on opposing counsel is within the parties’ 15 discretion. Statements of more than five pages will not be considered. 16 5. Case Management Under the Amended Federal Rules: The parties are 17 ordered to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and proceed with the initial disclosure process 18 as follows: 19 a. The Rule 26(f) conference shall be completed on or before May 31, 2017; 20 b. The date of initial disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)-D) shall occur on 21 or before June 5, 2017; 22 c. A Joint Discovery Plan shall be filed on the CM/ECF system as well as 23 lodged with Magistrate Judge Burkhardt by emailing the Plan to 24, on or before June 5, 2017. The Plan 25 must be one document and must explicitly cover the parties’ views and 26 proposals for each item identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3). The parties 27 should consult both Judge Burkhardt’s and the assigned District Judge’s Civil 28 Chambers Rules in drafting their Plan. A courtesy paper copy of the Plan 3 17-cv-00638-GPC-JLB 1 shall be delivered to Judge Burkhardt’s Chambers if the Plan with its 2 attachments exceeds 20 pages. In addition to complying with Chambers 3 Rules, the Plan must identify whether and what good cause (specific to this 4 case) exists to modify the Court’s tentative schedule for this case. The Court’s 5 tentative schedule is as follows: 6 i. Filing of motions to amend pleadings and/or add parties: July 14, 2017; 7 ii. Completion of fact and expert witness discovery: December 8, 2017; 8 iii. The designation and service of expert witness reports: October 13, 9 2017; 10 iv. The supplemental designation and service of rebuttal expert witness 11 reports: November 10, 2017; 12 v. The date by which dispositive motions, inclusive of any motions 13 addressing any Daubert issues, shall be filed: January 12, 2018. 14 Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as 15 otherwise set by the District Judge; 16 vi. The date for the Mandatory Settlement Conference: December 14, 17 2017; and 18 vii. The date for a Pretrial Conference before the District Judge assigned to 19 the case: May 11, 2018. 20 6. Requests to Continue or Reschedule an ENE Conference: Local Rule 21 16.1.c requires that an ENE Conference take place within 45 days of the filing of the first 22 answer. Requests to continue ENE Conferences are rarely granted. However, the Court 23 will consider formal, filed ex parte or joint motions to continue an ENE Conference when 24 extraordinary circumstances exist that make a continuance appropriate. In and of itself, 25 having to travel a long distance to appear in person is not “extraordinary.” Absent 26 extraordinary circumstances, requests for continuances will not be considered unless filed 27 no less than ten calendar days prior to the scheduled conference. 28 /// 4 17-cv-00638-GPC-JLB 1 7. Settlement Prior to ENE Conference: The Court encourages the parties to 2 work on settling the matter in advance of the ENE Conference. In the event that the parties 3 resolve the matter prior to the day of the ENE Conference, the following procedures must 4 be followed before the Court will vacate the ENE Conference and excuse the parties from 5 appearing: 6 a. The parties may file a Joint Motion to Dismiss and separately lodge by email 7 a proposed order to the assigned District Judge.2 If a Joint Motion to Dismiss 8 is filed, the Court will vacate the ENE Conference. 9 encouraged to contact Judge Burkhardt’s Chambers by telephone to notify the 10 The parties are Court of their pending Joint Motion; 11 b. If the parties settle more than 24 hours before the ENE Conference but are not 12 able to file a Joint Motion to Dismiss, they must file a Notice of Settlement 13 containing the electronic signatures of counsel for all settling parties and 14 identifying a date by which the Joint Motion to Dismiss will be filed. The 15 parties are encouraged to contact Judge Burkhardt’s Chambers by telephone 16 to notify the Court of their filed Notice of Settlement; 17 c. If the parties settle less than 24 hours before the conference, counsel for the 18 settling parties must JOINTLY call chambers and inform the Court of the 19 settlement and receive Court permission to not appear at the ENE Conference. 20 Dated: April 7, 2017 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 See Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court for the Southern District of California § 2(h), for the chambers’ official email address and procedures on emailing proposed orders. 5 17-cv-00638-GPC-JLB

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?