Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01675/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01675-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

3:19-cv-1675-GPC-AHG

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

MALLORY CAVADA, an individual, on 

behalf of herself and on behalf of all 

persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS 

GROUP, INC.; IHG MANAGEMENT 

MARYLAND LLC; 

INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS 

GROUP RESOURCES LLC; 

INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS 

GROUP RESOURCES, INC.; and DOES 

1–50,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-1675-GPC-AHG

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART JOINT 

MOTION TO CONTINUE EARLY 

NEUTRAL EVALUATION 

CONFERENCE AND 

CORRESPONDING DEADLINES; 

and

(2) RESETTING EARLY NEUTRAL 

EVALUATION AND CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

[ECF No. 18] 

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation 

Conference (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”), currently set for 

November 13, 2019. ECF No. 18. The parties seek an order from the Court vacating the 

ENE and rescheduling the CMC. Id. at 2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion.

Case 3:19-cv-01675-GPC-AHG Document 19 Filed 11/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:19-cv-1675-GPC-AHG

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 seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. ECF No. 11 at 4

(“An ENE may be rescheduled only upon a showing of good cause”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating 

that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”); see, 

e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the 

court may, for good cause, extend the time”); Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be 

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”).

“Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 

procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 

(9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 

amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 

the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 

inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted).

As an initial matter, the parties’ motion is deficient. The parties failed to provide a 

declaration from counsel, as required by the Court’s Chambers Rules. Id. (requiring that 

the joint motion for continuance include a “declaration from counsel seeking the 

continuance that describes the steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines, and the 

specific reasons why the deadlines cannot be met”). The Court will take the parties at their 

words without the required declaration, but will not do so again.1

The parties have represented to the Court that they need additional time to meet and 

confer regarding disputes about the scope of the case (i.e., the number of employees at 

issue) because this would impact the potential for settlement at an ENE. ECF No. 18 at 2–

3. The parties have also represented that they plan to exchange information prior to the 

 

1

“There can be no question that courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with 

their lawful orders . . .” Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966); see CivLR 

83.1 (authorizing imposition of sanctions based on a party’s failure to comply with a court 

order). 

Case 3:19-cv-01675-GPC-AHG Document 19 Filed 11/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:19-cv-1675-GPC-AHG

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

ENE, which has not yet been completed. Id. at 3. After the exchanges have been made, the 

parties plan to explore the possibility of private mediation. Id. (noting that the parties intend 

to “confer regarding whether a private mediation is agreeable”). Additionally, the parties 

have represented that that lead in-house counsel for Defendants is unavailable to attend the 

ENE due to previously scheduled business and travel commitments on the same date. Id.

Despite the joint motion’s shortcomings, the Court finds that the parties have 

demonstrated the diligence necessary to meet the good cause standard as to why the 

November 13, 2019 date should be rescheduled. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion

insofar as it seeks to continue the CMC. However, the joint motion provides no reasoning 

as to why the ENE should be vacated in lieu of being rescheduled, other than the parties’

desire to consider mediation as a potential option. This district’s Local Rules require ENEs

in all civil cases, with limited exceptions that do not apply here. See CivLR 16.1(c)(1); 

CivLR 16.1(e). Thus, for lack of good cause, the Court DENIES the motion insofar as it 

seeks to vacate the ENE.

Thus, the ENE and CMC originally set for November 13, 2019 are hereby RESET

for January 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.2 before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard. Her 

chambers are located on the third floor of the Edward J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse, 221 

West Broadway, Suite 3142, San Diego, California 92101. Do not report to Courtroom 3B; 

report to Chambers. In the event the case does not settle at the ENE, the Court will 

immediately thereafter hold a CMC.

Since the ENE has been continued, the accompanying pre-conference dates are also 

continued as follows: (1) the Confidential ENE Statements must be lodged with the Court 

no later than January 10, 2020; (2) the parties must meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(f) no later than December 24, 2019; (3) an updated Joint Case Management 

 

2 The parties requested the CMC be reset for January 14, 2020 or January 16, 2020. ECF 

No. 18 at 4. However, those dates are unavailable on the Court’s calendar. The Court has 

reset the ENE and CMC on the earliest available date.

Case 3:19-cv-01675-GPC-AHG Document 19 Filed 11/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:19-cv-1675-GPC-AHG

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

Statement must be filed by January 5, 2020; and (4) initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 

26(a)(1)(A-D) must occur by January 8, 2020. The parties must abide by all other preconference procedures set forth in the Court’s initial Order resetting the ENE and issuing 

pre-conference procedures following the transfer of this case. See ECF No. 11. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01675-GPC-AHG Document 19 Filed 11/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4