Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01693/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01693-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

19cv1693-H(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

MAURO MILINI,

Plaintiff,

v.

MASERATI NORTH AMERICA, INC., and 

DOES 1 through 100,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv1693-H(BLM)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ALLOW 

TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE OF 

DEFENDANT REPRESENTATIVE AT 

EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION

[ECF No. 10]

On November 19, 2019, Defendant filed an unopposed motion requesting leave for 

Defendant representative, Walter Smith, to appear telephonically at the November 27, 2019 

Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”). ECF No. 10. In support, Defendant states that it makes this 

“request to accommodate Mr. Smith’s training schedule, as he is currently scheduled to be 

attending a two-day training in Ontario, California on November 26–27, 2019,” and that “the 

trainings are few and far between and would not be available for Mr. Smith to attend for 

another two or three months . . . .” Id. at 1–2. In addition, “Mr. Smith has agreed to 

make himself available via telephone during the entirety of the ENE conference.” Id. at 1. 

Defendant further asserts that “[t]he parties have conferred and have stipulated to both 

clients attending by telephone with the permission of this Court.” Id. at 2. 

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 

Case 3:19-cv-01693-H-BLM Document 11 Filed 11/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv1693-H(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

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. Furthermore, 

“[t]he Court does not have the discretion to convert the ENE to a telephonic conference.”

1

 

Because there will be other trainings available for Mr. Smith to attend within the next two to 

three months, the training does not constitute good cause to excuse Mr. Smith’s personal 

appearance at the ENE. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/21/2019

 

1 See HONORABLE BARBARA LYNN MAJOR, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE, CHAMBERS RULES-CIVIL 

CASES, https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/judges/major/docs/Chambers%20Rules%20Civil.pdf.

Case 3:19-cv-01693-H-BLM Document 11 Filed 11/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2