Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00051/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00051-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331at Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

1

14-CV-51-JLS-WVG

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

JOSE CONDE, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SENSA, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 14-CV-51-JLS-WVG

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

EX PARTE RENEWED REQUEST 

FOR EXCUSAL FROM THE EARLY 

NEUTRAL EVALUATION 

CONFERENCE

[ECF No. 100]

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Susan Grace Stokes’ unopposed ex parte Renewed 

Request for Excusal from the Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) Conference scheduled for 

2:00 p.m. on July 10, 2017. (ECF No. 100.) For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s request 

is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

On June 2, 2015, the Court issued a Notice and Order scheduling an ENE Conference 

for June 29, 2015. (ECF No. 35.) After continuing the ENE Conference to July 16, 2015 at 

the parties’ request, Plaintiff Stokes filed a request to appear telephonically at the July 2015 

ENE Conference. (See ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff’s initial request was denied by the Court 

because the vague “time and expense” reasons offered did not come close to meeting the 

Case 3:14-cv-00051-JLS-WVG Document 101 Filed 07/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

14-CV-51-JLS-WVG

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

Court’s “extraordinary circumstances” requirement for excusal from in person appearance 

at the ENE Conference. (ECF No. 45 at 5-6, citing Judge Gallo’s Chambers Rules, II.) 

Accordingly, the Court denied the request. (Id. at 6.)

On July 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Renewed Request for Excusal from the July 2015 

ENE Conference. (ECF No. 47.) That Request was accompanied by a sworn declaration 

by Plaintiff indicating she had “nine (9) surgeries” to her back and was “presently 

undergoing treatment.” (ECF No. 47-4.) Plaintiff further stated that “[t]he pain associated 

with this medical condition prevents me from travelling to California.” (Id.) Attached to 

Plaintiff’s declaration was an x-ray and a handwritten statement signed by Plaintiff’s 

physician indicating that Plaintiff is “physically unable to travel by plane, bus, or train.” 

(Id.) This note was signed on July 14, 2015. (Id.) Given the declaration made under penalty 

of perjury, the Court found that Plaintiff met the “extraordinary circumstances” set forth in 

the Court’s rules and excused Plaintiff’s personal appearance from the ENE Conference. 

(See ECF No. 48.) The case has since been litigated extensively, resulting in an Answer to 

the Third Consolidated Complaint being filed on May 24, 2017. (ECF No. 94.)

On May 30, 2017 the Court issued a Notice and Order scheduling an ENE 

Conference for 2:00 p.m. on July 10, 2017. (ECF No. 95.) On June 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed 

an ex parte Request for Excusal from the current ENE Conference. (ECF No. 97.) This 

request was accompanied by a sworn declaration that also included the exact x-ray and 

handwritten statement signed by her physician that was first presented to the Court two

years before. (ECF No. 97-1.) Given this outdated information, the Court denied the request 

without prejudice. (ECF No. 98.) Plaintiff filed a Renewed Request for Excusal on July 3, 

2017, similarly requesting to be excused from the July 10, 2017 ENE Conference. (ECF 

No. 100.)

III. DISCUSSION

The Court’s Civil Chambers Rules state:

The Court will not grant requests to excuse a required party from personally 

appearing [at an ENE Conference or Settlement Conference], absent 

Case 3:14-cv-00051-JLS-WVG Document 101 Filed 07/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

14-CV-51-JLS-WVG

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

extraordinary circumstances. Distance or cost of travel alone does not

constitute an “extraordinary circumstance.”... Such requests may [] be made 

by submitting the request in writing at least fourteen (14) days before the 

scheduled [ENE Conference]. The request must be filed on the docket through 

CM/ECF.

Judge Gallo’s Chambers Rules II(E) (emphasis in original). Additionally, the Notice and 

Order scheduling the ENE Conference advised the parties that “[a]ll parties ... must be 

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

(ECF No. 95 at 2, emphasis in original.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met the extraordinary circumstances standard set 

out in the Court’s rules. Plaintiff has filed a declaration and exhibits in support of her 

request. Plaintiff’s declaration indicates she cannot travel due to ongoing treatment for 

numerous back surgeries. (ECF No. 100-1 at 2.) Additionally, Plaintiff’s doctor states that 

Plaintiff is “quite debilitated” and “is prohibited from traveling long distances.” (Id. at 3.)

Both documents are dated July 3, 2017. Given this updated information, the Court 

concludes Plaintiff has met the extraordinary circumstances standard and she is excused 

from personal appearance at the July 10, 2017 ENE Conference.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-00051-JLS-WVG Document 101 Filed 07/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

14-CV-51-JLS-WVG

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

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Request for Excusal from the ENE Conference is GRANTED. Plaintiff 

Stokes shall be available via telephone at all times from 2:00 p.m. until she is notified of 

the conclusion of the ENE Conference by her counsel.

The Court further notes that Plaintiff Stokes has yet to make a personal appearance 

in the matter. As the named plaintiff in a purported class action, Stokes is required to 

“adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Her protracted 

absence from this jurisdiction while the litigation unfolds concerns the Court. There is no 

substitute for personal attention and appearance. Telephonic participation may be 

appropriate on a short term or temporary basis, but not as a complete alternative to her 

personal involvement at critical stages, such as settlement conferences. As such, Stokes 

should begin to mentally and physically prepare herself to participate in person at the 

Mandatory Settlement Conference.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2017

 

1 The Court notes that as of the date of this order, the Mandatory Settlement Conference has not yet been 

set.

Case 3:14-cv-00051-JLS-WVG Document 101 Filed 07/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4