Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01235/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01235-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227 FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales

---

1

3:19-cv-1235-LAB-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

ESPERANZA COLLIER, individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

EAGLE RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-1235-LAB-AHG

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART JOINT 

MOTION TO VACATE AND

EXTEND ENE;

(2) CONTINUING EARLY 

NEUTRAL EVALUATION;

(3) DENYING CONTINUANCE OF 

CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE; and

(4) MODIFYING IN-PERSON CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO 

TELEPHONIC, COUNSEL-ONLY 

CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

[ECF No. 17]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Esperanza Collier’s (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Eagle 

Recovery Associates, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) joint motion to vacate and extend the Early 

Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”), currently set for October 2, 2019. ECF No. 17.

Case 3:19-cv-01235-LAB-AHG Document 18 Filed 09/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-1235-LAB-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. 12 at 3 

(“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).

Here, the parties have represented to the Court that they intend to exchange formal 

and informal discovery to better assess threshold issues of liability. ECF No. 17 at 2–4. 

The parties also represent that some necessary information is held by third parties, 

requiring subpoenas to be issued and HIPAA releases to be obtained. Id. at 3–4. However, 

by failing to provide a declaration from counsel, the parties failed to follow the Court’s 

Order Setting ENE, as well as the Court’s Chambers Rules. ECF No. 12 at 4 (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”); Chmb.R. at 2 (same). The Court will 

take the parties at their words without the required declaration, but will not do so again.1

 

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-01235-LAB-AHG Document 18 Filed 09/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-1235-LAB-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

Despite the joint motion’s shortcomings, the Court finds good cause to continue the 

ENE. However, the Court declines to vacate the Case Management Conference (“CMC”), 

which was scheduled to occur immediately after the original ENE. See ECF No. 12 at 3.

Thus, the Court GRANTS IN PART the motion and CONTINUES the ENE2to

November 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard,

located at 221 West Broadway, Suite 3142, San Diego, California 92101. Parties shall 

comply with the mandatory requirements set forth in the Court’s Order Setting ENE (ECF 

No. 12). The Court reiterates that personal appearances are required. 

The CMC will REMAIN, as originally calendared, on October 2, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.

before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard. However, instead of requiring personal 

attendance, the Court will permit the CMC to occur telephonically, and with counsel only. 

Counsel shall call the chambers teleconference line at 1-877-873-8018 and use 8367902 as 

the access code.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2019

 

2 Since the ENE has been continued, the Confidential ENE Statements must be lodged with 

the Court no later than November 13, 2019. The Confidential ENE Statements shall 

comply with the mandatory requirements set forth in the Court’s Order Setting ENE (ECF 

No. 12 at 2–3).

.

Case 3:19-cv-01235-LAB-AHG Document 18 Filed 09/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3