Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01365/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01365-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sunridge Nurseries, Inc.
Defendant
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, 

v.

SUNRIDGE NURSERIES, INC., a California 

Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01365-AWI-JLT

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO 

CONTINUE THE SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE AND THE DEADLINE 

TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING

(DOC. 12)

A couple of weeks ago, the Court denied in part the stipulation of the parties to extend the 

deadline for the defendant to file a responsive pleading and to continue the scheduling 

conference. (Doc. 11) The parties reported they had undergone mediation but had been unable to 

settle the case but hoped, with a 90-day extension on the deadline to file the responsive pleading 

and the scheduling conference, they may make progress. Id. The Court denied the stipulation 

noting the age of the case and the fact they offered no explanation how the 90 additional days 

would be spent or why they believed they could settle the case in light of the fact they had been 

unable to settle the case at their recent mediation. The Court permitted the defense about three 

weeks to file the responsive pleading and continued the scheduling conference to April 3, 2020. 

Id.

Case 1:19-cv-01365-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 03/10/20 Page 1 of 2
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 tenor of the order and despite the Court’s obvious concern over the parties’

refusal to settle the case or move it forward, the parties have, once again, requested a 90-day 

extension of these dates (Doc. 12) The parties seem to “hang their hat” on the fact that they 

“have recently been able to agree in principle to a monetary settlement amount to resolve the 

claims at issue.” Id. at 2, emphasis added. They report that they need 90 days “to continue to 

negotiate the final language and other terms in a Consent Decree.” Id. They suggest that allowing 

the defense to not file a responsive pleading and to not schedule the case “conserves resources” 

but don’t express any estimate as to the extent to which resources will be saved. Id. 

In the Court’s experience with these types of cases, the amount to be paid is the least 

contentious issue and, instead, the terms of the consent decree—in fact, whether there should be 

a consent decree—is where the bulk of the dispute exists. The parties here don’t even commit to 

whether they have agreed on a sum certain (Doc. 12 at 2), so the Court has little confidence that 

the case will settle in short order, especially without the press of deadlines. Rather, the parties

seem to say as they have twice in the past (Docs. 5, 8), that they want to try to settle the case, but 

have no real idea when or whether they can. The parties need to “fish or cut bait.” Thus, the 

stipulation is DENIED. As the Court previously ordered (Doc. 11), by March 27, 2020, the 

parties SHALL file either a notice of settlement or a joint scheduling conference.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 As the parties are aware, the defendant has failed to file the responsive pleading and is at risk of default, despite the 

Court’s order (Doc. 11). 

Case 1:19-cv-01365-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 2