Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01158/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01158-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

18-cv-01158-JLS-JLB

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

MONUMENT PEAK VENTURES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

GE HEALTHCARE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-01158-JLS-JLB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART JOINT 

MOTION TO CONTINUE EARLY 

NEUTRAL EVALUATION 

CONFERENCE

[ECF No. 17]

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation 

Conference and to Extend Time for Plaintiff to Answer Counterclaim and File Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 17.) The parties request a continuance of the Early Neutral 

Evaluation Conference (“ENE”), the dates set forth in the Court’s July 27, 2018 Order 

(ECF No. 14), and the deadlines for Plaintiff to file and serve its answer to the counterclaim 

and file its first amended complaint. (ECF No. 17 at 2-4.) This order does not rule on the 

parties’ request for an extension of the deadlines for Plaintiff to file and serve its answer to 

the counterclaim and file its first amended complaint as those requests are before the 

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino.

The parties request an extension of the ENE and the dates set forth in the Court’s 

July 27, 2018 Order because Defendant filed a counterclaim that Plaintiff intends to address 

Case 3:18-cv-01158-JLS-JLB Document 18 Filed 08/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-cv-01158-JLS-JLB

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

in an answer to the counterclaim and by filing an amended complaint, and because

Plaintiff’s lead counsel is currently out of the country on family matters. (Id.) For good 

cause shown, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties’ joint motion. 

The parties’ request to continue the ENE and the dates set forth in the Court’s July 27, 2018 

Order (other than that date for submitting ENE statements) is denied. Instead, to 

accommodate counsel, the ENE is hereby converted to a telephonic, counsel only 

conference and the date for lodgment of ENE statements is continued to August 31, 2018 

as set forth below. The Court’s July 27, 2018 Order (ECF No. 14) is hereby amended as 

follows:

The ENE is converted to a telephonic, counsel only conference and remains set for 

September 5, 2018 at 8:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. Plaintiff’s 

principal attorney responsible for the litigation is responsible for placing one joint call with 

all participating counsel already on the line into Judge Burkhardt’s chambers at (619) 557-

6624. 

In the event the case does not settle at the ENE, a telephonic, counsel only Case 

Management Conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) will be held at the conclusion 

of the ENE Conference.

The following are mandatory directions for the parties preparing for the Early 

Neutral Evaluation Conference. Absent express permission obtained from this Court, 

and notwithstanding the pendency of any motion, counsel shall timely comply with 

the dates and deadlines ordered herein.

1. Personal Appearance of Parties Not Required: The principal attorneys 

responsible for the litigation, must appear by telephone and be legally and factually 

prepared to discuss settlement of the case. The principal attorneys are responsible for 

ensuring that all parties, adjusters for insured defendants, and other representatives of a 

party having full settlement authority as explained below may be reached by telephone 

should the need arise during the ENE conference. Counsel appearing without a means to 

contact their clients by telephone (whether or not counsel has been given settlement 

Case 3:18-cv-01158-JLS-JLB Document 18 Filed 08/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-cv-01158-JLS-JLB

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

authority) will be cause for immediate imposition of sanctions and may also result in the 

immediate termination of the conference. If each of the principal attorneys responsible for 

the litigation are not listed on the docket as an “ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED,” then they 

each shall enter their appearance on the docket as soon as practicable, but in no event later 

than ten calendar days prior to the ENE conference. 

Unless there are extraordinary circumstances, persons required to attend the 

conference pursuant to this Order shall not be excused from attendance. Requests for 

excuse from attendance for extraordinary circumstances shall be made in writing at 

least ten calendar days prior to the conference. Failure to appear at the ENE conference 

will be grounds for sanctions.

2. Full Settlement Authority Required1: In addition to counsel who will try 

the case, a party or party representative with full settlement authority must be available by 

telephone should the need to contact them arise at the conference. In the case of an entity, 

an authorized representative of the entity who is not retained outside counsel must be 

present and must have discretionary authority to commit the entity to pay an amount up to 

the amount of the Plaintiff’s prayer (excluding punitive damages prayers). The purpose of 

this requirement is to have representatives available who can settle the case during the 

course of the conference without consulting a superior. Counsel for a United States

government entity may be excused from this requirement so long as the government 

attorney who attends the ENE conference (1) has primary responsibility for handling the 

case, and (2) may negotiate settlement offers which the attorney is willing to recommend 

 

1

“Full settlement authority” means that the individuals at the settlement conference must be 

authorized to explore settlement options fully and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable 

to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person 

needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman 

v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose of requiring a person with 

unlimited settlement authority to attend the conference contemplates that the person’s view of the case 

may be altered during the face to face conference. Id. at 486. A limited or a sum certain of authority is 

not adequate. See Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595-97 (8th Cir. 2001).

Case 3:18-cv-01158-JLS-JLB Document 18 Filed 08/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-cv-01158-JLS-JLB

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

to the government official having ultimate settlement authority.

3. ENE Statements Required: On or before August 31, 2018, the parties shall 

lodge statements of five pages or less directly to the chambers of Magistrate Judge 

Burkhardt outlining the nature of the case, the claims, the defenses, and the parties’ 

positions regarding settlement of the case. The settlement position must include a specific 

and current demand or offer addressing all relief or remedies sought. If a specific demand 

or offer cannot be made at the time the brief is submitted, then the reasons therefor must 

be stated along with a statement as to when the party will be in a position to state a demand 

or offer. A general statement that a party will “negotiate in good faith,” “offer a nominal 

cash sum,” or “be prepared to make an offer at the conference” is not a specific demand or 

offer. The statement shall also list all attorney and non-attorney conference attendees for 

that side, including the name(s) and title(s)/position(s) of the party/party representative(s) 

who will attend and have settlement authority at the conference. 

ENE statements shall be lodged via email at efile_burkhardt@casd.uscourts.gov. If 

exhibits are attached and the total submission amounts to more than 20 pages, a hard copy 

must also be delivered directly to chambers. Whether these statements are submitted 

confidentially or whether they are served on opposing counsel is within the parties’ 

discretion. Statements of more than five pages will not be considered.

This order does not modify any other date, deadline, or requirement set forth in the 

Court’s July 27, 2018 Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01158-JLS-JLB Document 18 Filed 08/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4