Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01203/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01203-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

1

18cv1203-LAB(BLM)

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

ALEXANDRA INVESTMENTS, INC., a 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

FCA US LLC, a limited liability company, and 

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1203-LAB(BLM)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT FCA US 

LLC’S MOTION TO ALLOW FCA US 

LLC’S REPRESENTATIVE TO APPEAR 

TELEPHONICALLY AT THE EARLY 

NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCE

[ECF No. 33]

On March 4, 2019, Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) filed a motion to excuse the 

personal appearance of its corporate representative, Kris Krueger, at the March 11, 2019 Early 

Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”). ECF No. 33. Defendant acknowledges that Mr. Kreuger

is the person who “has full authorization to settle this matter.” Id. at 1. Defendant seeks 

permission to have Mr. Krueger appear telephonically, rather than in person, because the 

potential damages in this case are limited and Mr. Krueger would have to spend at least sixteen 

hours traveling from Michigan to San Diego. Id. at 1–2; see also Declaration of Kris Krueger at 

2. Defendant asserts that given the limited damages, and costs of attendance, it makes more 

economic sense for Mr. Krueger to appear telephonically. ECF No. 33 at 1–3. Defendant also 

Case 3:18-cv-01203-LAB-BLM Document 34 Filed 03/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv1203-LAB(BLM)

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

argues that the lengthy travel requirements would be incredibly burdensome and hinder Mr. 

Krueger’s ability to handle the rest of his work. Id. Plaintiffs did not respond to Defendant’s 

motion. See Docket.

It is the Court’s experience that the presence of all parties and counsel is critical to the 

possibility of a successful settlement and that telephonic appearances are not as productive or 

successful. In addition, in the order setting the ENE, the Court stated that the personal 

appearance requirement would only be waived for “good cause.” ECF No. 31. Chambers rules 

state that a party will not be excused from personal appearance at an ENE “absent extraordinary 

circumstances,” and that “[d]istance of travel alone does not constitute an ‘extraordinary 

circumstance.’” Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 3/5/2019

Case 3:18-cv-01203-LAB-BLM Document 34 Filed 03/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2