1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CJ SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., Case No.: 19-CV-863-W-WVG

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO

13 v. CONTINUE MANDATORY

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

14 TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

15 Defendant. 16

17 On August 19, 2019, this Court issued a Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery 18 and Pre-Trial Proceedings in this matter (Doc. No. 5). In relevant part, the Order set a 19 January 17, 2020 Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”). Presently, just one week 20 shy of the MSC, the Parties filed their January 9, 2020 Joint Motion to Continue the MSC 21 Date (Doc. No. 10). The Joint Motion requests the continuance on the basis that a 22 scheduling conflict prevents Defendant’s representative from personally appearing before 23 the Court on January 17, 2020. 24 Glaringly, the Joint Motion explains neither the reason for the Parties’ extreme 25 delay in bringing their request to continue the MSC nor, relatedly, the date on which 26 Defendant first learned that a scheduling conflict had arisen. Equally notable, the Joint 27 Motion is silent as to what efforts, if any, Defendant made to make its representative 28 1 || available for the MSC after the scheduling conflict arose, to maintain compliance with 2 Court’s Scheduling Order. In themselves, these deficiencies warrant this Court’s 3 || denial of the Parties’ Joint Motion, as the Parties have failed to delineate what diligent 4 |\efforts they have made to satisfy the good cause standard that governs their Joint Motion. 5 || Watson v. TruWest Credit Union, 2013 WL 12124608 *1 (S.D. Cal. June 28, 2013) (“the 6 || Rule 16 good cause standard focuses on the ‘reasonable diligence’ of the moving party”’) 7 || (citing Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 477 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also Coleman 8 Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-1295) (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that Rule 16(b) 9 || scheduling orders may be modified for good cause based primarily on the movant’s 10 || diligence). 11 Given the above circumstances, the Joint Motion falls far short of meeting the 12 || good cause standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16. Nonetheless, the 13 || Court recognizes that the absence of Defendant’s representative from the January 17, 14 2020 MSC will critically impair, if not altogether prevent, meaningful and productive 15 || settlement discussions. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Joint Motion and 16 ||hereby RESETS the MSC date to Thursday, February 27, 2020, at 9:00 A.M. All other 17 || dates, as memorialized in the Court’s August 19, 2019 Scheduling Order, still stand. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: January 13, 2020 Se 20 UM Ss 71 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28