Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00650/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00650-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

3:19-cv-00650-BAS-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

PETER STROJNIK, SR.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

EVANS HOTELS, LLC,

Defendant/Counter-Claimant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00650-BAS-AHG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL 

EVALUATION CONFERENCE

[ECF No. 90]

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue ENE (ECF 

No. 90), filed nunc pro tunc on February 26, 2020. Plaintiff seeks to continue the Early 

Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) currently set for March 4, 2020 in this case 

because he has arranged to be out of the country on that date. Id. The Court’s order 

rescheduling the ENE for March 4, 2020 was issued on January 3, 2020, after Plaintiff 

requested to appear for the January 13, 2020 ENE telephonically due to significant pain 

making it “medically difficult if not impossible [for Plaintiff] to travel from his home in 

Phoenix to San Diego.” See ECF No. 60. Because in-person appearances are required for 

ENEs, the Court continued the ENE rather than granting the request. ECF No. 61.

Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. See 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-00650-BAS-AHG Document 91 Filed 03/02/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-00650-BAS-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).

Additionally, the initial order resetting the ENE and CMC in this case following 

transfer to the undersigned sets forth several specific requirements for requests to continue 

an ENE, which are also included in Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard’s Civil Pretrial 

Procedures. These requirements include: (1) the request must be made by joint motion no 

later than seven calendar days before the affected date; (2) the request must state the 

original deadline or date of the ENE; (3) the request must state the number of previous 

requests for continuances; (4) the movant must make a showing of good cause for the 

request; (5) the motion must state whether the request is opposed and why; (6) the motion 

must set forth whether the requested continuance will affect other case management dates; 

and (7) the request must include a declaration from the party seeking the continuance that 

describes the steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines, and the specific reasons 

why the deadlines cannot be met. See ECF No. 42 at 4; Chmb.R. at 2. These requirements 

were incorporated into each order resetting the ENE thereafter. See ECF Nos. 49 at 3; 

57 at 2; 61 at 3.

Plaintiff failed to comply with any of the above requirements. Plaintiff’s ex parte 

motion is two sentences in length: “Plaintiff has previously arranged to be out of the 

country between March 2nd and March 14, 2020. Therefore, he respectfully requests a 

continuance of the ENE to a time convenient to the Court.” ECF No. 90. Despite the 

deficient filing, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and in an effort to ascertain whether 

Plaintiff could provide additional information to demonstrate good cause to continue the 

ENE due to a pre-planned vacation, chambers staff contacted Plaintiff and defense counsel 

by email on February 28, 2020 to ask whether the request was opposed, and, if so, whether 

Plaintiff had booked the vacation before the Court issued its January 3, 2020 order resetting 

the ENE to March 4, 2020. Defense counsel confirmed that the request was opposed. 

Case 3:19-cv-00650-BAS-AHG Document 91 Filed 03/02/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-00650-BAS-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

Plaintiff initially refused to provide any information to the Court to confirm the booking 

date, but eventually provided a screenshot showing that the vacation was booked on 

January 22, 2020. Although Plaintiff noted that the trip was planned prior to booking, 

Plaintiff did not explain either in his motion or in his subsequent communications with the 

Court why he waited until February 25, 2020 to mail the motion seeking a continuance.

Whether or not Plaintiff had already tentatively planned a vacation for early March before 

learning of the January 3rd order rescheduling the ENE for March 4, 2020, Plaintiff 

proceeded to finalize the booking on January 22 in spite of the conflicting ENE date, and 

then waited more than a month after booking to notify the Court that he could not appear 

by way of a cursory ex parte motion that ignored all of the Court’s requirements for seeking 

continuances. In other words, Plaintiff failed to show diligence, which is an essential

component of establishing good cause.

Indeed, Plaintiff’s communications with the Court indicate a complete disregard for 

the expectation that a litigant should make a diligent effort to appear for hearing dates at 

all. However, the “good cause” standard requiring the Court to consider the diligence of 

the party seeking a continuance is dictated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is 

applied to all litigants and counsel equally. Plaintiff has failed to meet that standard here. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue ENE (ECF No. 90) is DENIED. Should Plaintiff 

fail to appear for the ENE, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why he should not 

face sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00650-BAS-AHG Document 91 Filed 03/02/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3