Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01516/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01516-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

3:19-cv-1516-CAB-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

GEORGE GAVITT, on behalf of himself 

and all others similarly situated and on 

behalf of the general public,

Plaintiff,

v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-1516-CAB-AHG

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION

TO RESCHEDULE EARLY 

NEUTRAL EVALUATION 

CONFERENCE

[ECF No. 20]

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Reschedule the 

Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) (ECF No. 20), currently scheduled for 

March 4, 2020. The parties request that the ENE be rescheduled for April 1, 2020, “or the 

soonest date thereafter that is convenient for the parties and the Court.” ECF No. 20 at 3. 

Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. ECF No. 14 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

also 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 

Case 3:19-cv-01516-CAB-AHG Document 21 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-1516-CAB-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

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).

The parties request that the ENE be continued in light of Defendant’s pending 

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No 19), filed on February 11, 2020. Based on 

the hearing date of March 17, 2020, Plaintiff’s Response to the motion is due on March 3, 

2020, and Defendant’s Reply is due on March 10, 2020. See ECF No. 20 at 2. These dates 

fall after the dates related to the ENE and Case Management Conference (“CMC”), such

as the deadline to file a Joint CMC Statement by February 24, 2020, and the parties believe 

that continuing the ENE and CMC is necessary “to ensure an adequate and thorough Rule

26(f) report” and to allow for a fruitful ENE. Id. at 3. Additionally, the parties would prefer 

the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to be fully briefed before preparing their ENE 

statements. Id.

The Court finds the parties have failed to show good cause for rescheduling the ENE 

and CMC. As explained in the Court’s Order setting the ENE and CMC, Local Rule 16.1(c) 

requires that an ENE take place within 45 days of the filing of the Answer, and requests to 

continue ENEs are rarely granted. ECF No. 14 at 3-4. April 1, 2020—the date requested 

by the parties for the ENE—is 71 days after the Answer. Moreover, the date of April 1, 

2020 is not available on the Court’s calendar, so resetting the ENE and CMC would cause 

an even greater delay than the Joint Motion anticipates.

More importantly, the Court requires that a joint motion to continue an ENE include, 

among other things, “[a] declaration from the 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.” Id. at 4. The parties have not provided such a declaration

here, nor does the Joint Motion otherwise establish the diligence of the partiesin attempting 

to comply with the existing deadlines, which is an essential part of showing good cause. 

See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

Case 3:19-cv-01516-CAB-AHG Document 21 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-1516-CAB-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

Finally, the parties assert that rescheduling the ENE “will not materially impact 

overall case management[.]” ECF No. 20 at 3. The Court disagrees. The Answer in this 

case was not filed until January 21, 2020, more than five months after the Complaint was 

filed on August 13, 2019. See ECF Nos. 1, 12. Therefore, the case has already been 

significantly delayed in its early stages, such that the parties will not have much time to 

conduct discovery even with the current ENE and CMC date without a relatively late trial 

setting. Case management would thus be quite negatively impacted by any further delay.

For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Joint Motion to Reschedule Early Neutral 

Evaluation Conference (ECF No. 20).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01516-CAB-AHG Document 21 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3