1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 CAMERON MASON, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00763-TWR-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE EARLY 14 v. NEUTRAL EVALUATION 15 SENIOR OPERATIONS, LLC, CONFERENCE AND CASE doing business as SENIOR AEROSPACE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 16 KETEMA, 17 [ECF No. 12] Defendants. 18

19 Before the Court is the parties’ joint1 motion to continue the Early Neutral 20 Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”), currently 21 scheduled for July 27, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. ECF No. 12. 22 23 24 1 In the instant motion, counsel indicated that “Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s 25 request for a brief continuance.” ECF No. 12 at 2, 4. However, the Court notes that the motion is solely signed by Defendant’s counsel and does not comply with the Court’s Order 26 Setting ENE or Chambers Rules, which require a joint motion. ECF No. 3 at 6 (order setting 27 the ENE, stating that “[a]ll requests for continuances must be made by a joint motion”); Chmb.R. at 2 (same). The Court will construe the instant motion as a joint motion, but will 28 1 Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. ECF No. 3 at 2 6–7 (“An ENE may be rescheduled only upon a showing of good cause”); Chmb.R. at 2 3 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 4 request”); see, e.g., FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a 5 specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). 6 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 7 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

, 1259 8 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 9 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 10 Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 11 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 12 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good 13 cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. 14 Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS,

, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 15 19, 2018). 16 Here, Defendant has represented to the Court that “due to unforeseen 17 circumstances,” Defendant’s principal attorney, Allison Eckstrom, “must take her mother 18 to a medical appointment scheduled for the same time as the ENE [which] cannot be 19 rescheduled.” ECF No. 12 at 2, 4. Upon due consideration, good cause appearing, the Court 20 GRANTS the motion. The Court ORDERS the following: 21 1. The ENE and CMC, originally scheduled for July 27, 2022, are hereby 22 RESET for August 1, 2022 at 9:45 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. 23 2. Since the ENE has been rescheduled, each party’s Confidential ENE 24 Statement is now due no later than July 25, 2022. These statements must conform with 25 the requirements set forth in the Court’s original order setting ENE. See ECF No. 3 at 2–3. 26 3. Since the ENE has been rescheduled, each party’s Participant Information 27 List is now due no later than July 25, 2022. These emails must conform with the 28 requirements set forth in the Court’s original order setting ENE. See ECF No. 3 at 5–6. 1 4. All procedures and requirements set forth in the Court’s Order Setting ENE 2 || (ECF No. 3) remain in place, except as explicitly modified by this order. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||Dated: July 19, 2022 . JpwornH. Xho Honorable Allison H. Goddard 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28