Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02033/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02033-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

John G. Petrou,

Plaintiff,

v.

Navient Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB

ORDER: (1) GRANTING AMENDED 

JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE;

(2) RESETTING EARLY NEUTRAL 

EVALUATION CONFERENCE; AND 

(3) RESETTING RULE 26 

COMPLIANCE AND CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

[ECF Nos. 11, 17]

The parties’ Amended Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation 

Conference (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the December 

18, 2017 Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) of this case and the dates and deadlines 

associated therewith (ECF No. 11) are VACATED. The ENE Conference for this case is 

hereby RESET and will be held on January 10, 2018, at 9:00 AM in the Chambers of 

Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, Edward J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse, 221 West 

Broadway, Suite 5140, San Diego, California 92101. In the event the case does not settle 

at the ENE Conference, a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 16(b) is SET for January 10, 2018, and will be held at the conclusion of the ENE 

Conference.

The following are mandatory directions for the parties preparing for the ENE 

Conference. Absent express permission obtained from this Court, and 

Case 3:17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB Document 20 Filed 12/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2

17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

notwithstanding the pendency of any motion, counsel shall timely comply with the 

dates and deadlines ordered herein.

1. Purpose of Conference: The purpose of the ENE Conference is to permit an 

informal discussion between the attorneys, parties, and the settlement judge of every aspect 

of the lawsuit in an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case. All ENE Conference 

discussions will be informal, off the record, privileged and confidential. Counsel for any 

non-English speaking parties is responsible for arranging for the appearance of an 

interpreter at the ENE Conference.

2. Personal Appearance of Parties Required: All parties, adjusters for insured 

defendants, and other representatives of a party having full settlement authority as 

explained below, and the principal attorneys responsible for the litigation, must be present 

in person and legally and factually prepared to discuss settlement of the case. Counsel 

appearing without their clients (whether or not counsel has been given settlement authority) 

will be cause for immediate imposition of sanctions and may also result in the immediate 

termination of the ENE Conference. However, in light of the pending motion to dismiss 

filed by Defendant Navient Solutions, LLC f/k/a Navient Solutions, Inc. (“NSL”) (ECF 

No. 5), NSL and its counsel are EXCUSED from attending the ENE Conference. If 

the pending motion to dismiss is denied prior to January 10, 2017 and NSL remains 

a party to this action, NSL and its counsel shall participate telephonically in the ENE 

Conference and any CMC held at the conclusion of the ENE Conference.

If each of the principal attorneys responsible for the litigation is not listed on the 

docket as an “ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED,” then they each shall enter their appearance 

on the docket as soon as practicable, but in no event later than ten calendar days prior to 

the ENE Conference.

Unless there are extraordinary circumstances, persons required to attend the ENE 

Conference pursuant to this Order shall not be excused from personal attendance. 

Requests for excuse from attendance for extraordinary circumstances shall be filed 

Case 3:17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB Document 20 Filed 12/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3

17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

as a motion at least ten calendar days prior to the conference. Failure to appear at the 

ENE Conference will be grounds for sanctions.

3. Full Settlement Authority Required: In addition to counsel who will try the 

case, a party or party representative with full settlement authority1 must be present for the 

ENE Conference. In the case of an entity, an authorized representative of the entity who 

is not retained outside counsel must be present and must have discretionary authority to 

commit the entity to pay an amount up to the amount of the Plaintiff’s prayer (excluding 

punitive damages prayers). The purpose of this requirement is to have representatives 

present who can settle the case during the course of the ENE Conference without consulting 

a superior. 

4. ENE Statements Required: On or before December 28, 2017, the parties 

shall lodge statements of five pages or less directly to the chambers of Magistrate Judge 

Burkhardt outlining the nature of the case, the claims, the defenses, and the parties’ 

positions regarding settlement of the case. The settlement position must include a specific 

and current demand or offer addressing all relief or remedies sought. If a specific demand 

or offer cannot be made at the time the brief is submitted, then the reasons therefor must 

be stated along with a statement as to when the party will be in a position to state a demand 

or offer. A general statement that a party will “negotiate in good faith,” “offer a nominal 

cash sum,” or “be prepared to make an offer at the conference” is not a specific demand or 

offer. The statement shall also list all attorney and non-attorney conference attendees for 

 

1

“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).

Case 3:17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB Document 20 Filed 12/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4

17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that side, including the name(s) and title(s)/position(s) of the party/party representative(s) 

who will attend and have settlement authority at the conference. 

ENE statements shall be lodged via email at efile_burkhardt@casd.uscourts.gov. If 

exhibits are attached and the total submission amounts to more than 20 pages, a hard copy 

must also be delivered directly to chambers. Whether these statements are submitted 

confidentially or whether they are served on opposing counsel is within the parties’ 

discretion. Statements of more than five pages will not be considered.

5. Submission of Magistrate Judge Consent Form: No later than December 

19, 2017, each party shall provide Plaintiff’s counsel with an executed copy of the attached 

consent form, titled Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 73.1, if (and only if) all parties have consented to the reference 

to a magistrate judge, then Plaintiff shall file the consent form(s) in paper format at the 

Clerk’s Office by December 20, 2017. If the paper format filing reflects consent by all

parties, then the form(s) will be forwarded to the assigned district judge for approval. The 

consent form(s) should not be filed with the court electronically through its Case 

Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. No consent form will be made 

available, nor will its contents be made known to any judicial officer, unless all parties 

have consented to the reference to a magistrate judge. The parties are free to withhold 

consent without adverse substantive consequences. Questions related to the consent 

form(s) should be directed only to the clerk’s office at 619-557-5600. Please do not call 

chambers’ staff with questions related to the consent form(s).

6. New Parties Must Be Notified by Plaintiff’s Counsel: Plaintiff’s counsel 

shall give notice of the ENE Conference and this Order to parties responding to the 

complaint after the date of this notice.

7. Case Management Under the Amended Federal Rules: The parties are 

ordered to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and proceed with the initial disclosure process

as follows:

Case 3:17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB Document 20 Filed 12/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5

17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a. The Rule 26(f) conference shall be completed on or before December 19, 

2017;

b. The date of initial disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D) shall occur on or 

before December 28, 2017;

c. A Joint Discovery Plan shall be filed on the CM/ECF system as well as 

lodged with Magistrate Judge Burkhardt by emailing the Plan to 

efile_burkhardt@casd.uscourts.gov, on or before December 28, 2017. The 

Plan must be one document and must explicitly cover the parties’ views and 

proposals for each item identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3). The parties 

should consult both Judge Burkhardt’s and the assigned District Judge’s Civil 

Chambers Rules in drafting their Plan. A courtesy paper copy of the Plan 

shall be delivered to Judge Burkhardt’s Chambers if the Plan with its 

attachments exceeds 20 pages. In addition to complying with Chambers 

Rules, the Plan must identify whether and what good cause (specific to this 

case) exists to modify the Court’s tentative schedule for this case. The Court’s 

tentative schedule is as follows:

i. Filing of motions to amend pleadings and/or add parties: February 16, 

2018;

ii. Completion of fact and expert witness discovery: May 25, 2018;

iii. The designation and service of expert witness reports: April 6, 2018;

iv. The supplemental designation and service of rebuttal expert witness 

reports: May 4, 2018;

v. The date by which dispositive motions shall be filed: June 12, 2018. 

Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as 

otherwise set by the District Judge;

vi. The date for the Mandatory Settlement Conference: August 31, 2018; 

and

Case 3:17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB Document 20 Filed 12/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6

17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

vii. The date for a Pretrial Conference before the District Judge assigned to 

the case: October 10, 2018.

8. Requests to Continue or Reschedule an ENE Conference: Local Rule 

16.1.c requires that an ENE Conference take place within 45 days of the filing of the first 

answer. Requests to continue ENE Conferences are rarely granted. However, the Court 

will consider formal, filed ex parte or joint motions to continue an ENE Conference when 

extraordinary circumstances exist that make a continuance appropriate. In and of itself, 

having to travel a long distance to appear in person is not “extraordinary.” Absent 

extraordinary circumstances, requests for continuances will not be considered unless filed

no less than ten calendar days prior to the scheduled conference.

9. Settlement Prior to ENE Conference: The Court encourages the parties to 

work on settling the matter in advance of the ENE Conference. In the event that the parties 

resolve the matter prior to the day of the ENE Conference, the following procedures must 

be followed before the Court will vacate the ENE Conference and excuse the parties from 

appearing:

a. The parties may file a Joint Motion to Dismiss and separately lodge by email 

a proposed order to the assigned District Judge.

2

 If a Joint Motion to Dismiss 

is filed, the Court will vacate the ENE Conference. The parties are 

encouraged to contact Judge Burkhardt’s Chambers by telephone to notify the 

Court of their pending Joint Motion;

b. If the parties settle more than 24 hours before the ENE Conference but are not 

able to file a Joint Motion to Dismiss, they must file a Notice of Settlement 

containing the electronic signatures of counsel for all settling parties and 

identifying a date by which the Joint Motion to Dismiss will be filed. The 

 

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.

Case 3:17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB Document 20 Filed 12/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7

17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

parties are encouraged to contact Judge Burkhardt’s Chambers by telephone 

to notify the Court of their filed Notice of Settlement;

c. If the parties settle less than 24 hours before the conference, counsel for the 

settling parties must JOINTLY call chambers and inform the Court of the 

settlement and receive Court permission to not appear at the ENE Conference.

After having reviewed Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules, appropriate 

questions regarding this case or the mandatory directions set forth herein may be addressed

through a joint call by the parties to Judge Burkhardt’s law clerks at (619) 557-6624. For 

additional information, please see Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules.

Dated: December 5, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB Document 20 Filed 12/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
* Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 73.1, if (and only if) all parties have consented to the reference to a magistrate judge, 

then Plaintiff shall file the consent form(s) in paper format at the Clerk’s Office.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

John G. Petrou,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

Navient Corporation, et al.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: 17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB

NOTICE, CONSENT, AND

REFERENCE OF A CIVIL ACTION TO 

A MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Notice of a magistrate judge's availability. A United States magistrate judge of this court is 

available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action (including a jury or nonjury trial) and to 

order the entry of a final judgment. The judgment may then be appealed directly to the United 

States court of appeals like any other judgment of this court. A magistrate judge may exercise this 

authority only if all parties voluntarily consent. 

You may consent to have your case referred to a magistrate judge, or you may withhold your 

consent without adverse substantive consequences. The name of any party withholding consent will 

not be revealed to any judge who may otherwise be involved with your case. 

Consent to a magistrate judge's authority. The following parties ☐ Consent / ☐ Do Not Consent*

to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this case including trial, the 

entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings.

Printed Names Signatures of all parties and counsel for all parties Dates

REFERENCE ORDER

IT IS ORDERED: This case is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt to 

conduct all proceedings and order entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, and CivLR 73.1.

Date United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-02033-BTM-JLB Document 20 Filed 12/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8