Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00863/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00863-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441bc Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1

19-CV-863-W-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

CJ SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY 

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-CV-863-W-WVG

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 

CONTINUE MANDATORY 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

On August 19, 2019, this Court issued a Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery 

and Pre-Trial Proceedings in this matter (Doc. No. 5). In relevant part, the Order set a

January 17, 2020 Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”). Presently, just one week 

shy of the MSC, the Parties filed their January 9, 2020 Joint Motion to Continue the MSC 

Date (Doc. No. 10). The Joint Motion requests the continuance on the basis that a 

scheduling conflict prevents Defendant’s representative from personally appearing before 

the Court on January 17, 2020. 

Glaringly, the Joint Motion explains neither the reason for the Parties’ extreme 

delay in bringing their request to continue the MSC nor, relatedly, the date on which

Defendant first learned that a scheduling conflict had arisen. Equally notable, the Joint 

Motion is silent as to what efforts, if any, Defendant made to make its representative

Case 3:19-cv-00863-W-WVG Document 11 Filed 01/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-CV-863-W-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

available for the MSC after the scheduling conflict arose, to maintain compliance with 

the Court’s Scheduling Order. In themselves, these deficiencies warrant this Court’s 

denial of the Parties’ Joint Motion, as the Parties have failed to delineate what diligent 

efforts they have made to satisfy the good cause standard that governs their Joint Motion. 

Watson v. TruWest Credit Union, 2013 WL 12124608 *1 (S.D. Cal. June 28, 2013) (“the 

Rule 16 good cause standard focuses on the ‘reasonable diligence’ of the moving party”) 

(citing Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 477 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also Coleman 

v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-1295) (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that Rule 16(b) 

scheduling orders may be modified for good cause based primarily on the movant’s 

diligence). 

Given the above circumstances, the Joint Motion falls far short of meeting the 

good cause standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16. Nonetheless, the 

Court recognizes that the absence of Defendant’s representative from the January 17, 

2020 MSC will critically impair, if not altogether prevent, meaningful and productive 

settlement discussions. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Joint Motion and 

hereby RESETS the MSC date to Thursday, February 27, 2020, at 9:00 A.M. All other 

dates, as memorialized in the Court’s August 19, 2019 Scheduling Order, still stand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00863-W-WVG Document 11 Filed 01/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2