1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 REGINA BRAY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00268-KES-CDB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING JULY 14, 2025, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 (Doc. 8) AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, et al., 14 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING Defendants, CONFERENCE ON AUGUST 21, 2025, 15 AT 10:00 AM

16 17 Plaintiff Regina Bray (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 18 August 30, 2024, in the County of Kern Superior Court, Case No. BCV-24-102974. (Doc. 1). 19 Defendants Amazon.com Services LLC and Michael May (collectively, “Defendants”) removed 20 the action to this Court on March 3, 2025. Id. On June 2, 2025, an initial scheduling conference 21 was held off the record, but the case was not scheduled at the parties’ joint request to 22 accommodate a scheduled mediation. Accordingly, the scheduling conference was reset for July 23 14, 2025, at 10:00 AM. (Doc. 6). 24 On July 14, 2025, the Court convened via Zoom videoconference for the reset scheduling 25 conference. (Doc. 7). Devin S. Lindsay appeared on behalf of Defendants. Plaintiff did not 26 appear either personally or through counsel, preventing the Court from scheduling the case. 27 Therefore, that same day, the Court ordered counsel for Plaintiff to show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to appear at the scheduling conference. (Doc. 8). 1 Plaintiff was ordered to identify proposed dates agreeable to counsel for Defendants to reconvene 2 for scheduling conference no earlier than 14 days from the date of the order. Id. at 2. 3 Pending before the Court is counsel for Plaintiff’s timely response to the order to show 4 cause, timely filed on July 17, 2025. (Doc. 9). Counsel for Plaintiff represents his failure to 5 appear was due to an unexpected family medical emergency that occurred on the morning of the 6 July 14, 2025, scheduling conference, which hindered his ability to provide timely notice to the 7 Court of his inability to appear. Id. at 2. Counsel for Plaintiff requests the Court decline to 8 impose sanctions as his absence was not willful or due to neglect but was “an extraordinary and 9 unforeseeable circumstance” that “resulted from an unavoidable family medical emergency.” Id. 10 Counsel for Plaintiff represents he has conferred with counsel for Defendants and the parties 11 have proposed certain dates for a rescheduled scheduling conference in compliance with the 12 Court’s order. Id. 13 To determine whether neglect is excusable, a court must consider four factors: "(1) the 14 danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on 15 the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith." 16 In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2007). Having considered 17 these factors, the Court finds counsel for Plaintiff’s explanation for his failure to appear at the 18 scheduling conference the result of excusable neglect and finds good cause to discharge the order 19 to show cause without the imposition of sanctions. Additionally, based on the parties’ jointly 20 proposed dates to reconvene for a scheduling conference, the Court sets the scheduling 21 conference for August 21, 2025, at 10:00 AM. 22 23 24 Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank 25

26 27 1 Conclusion and Order 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. The July 14, 2025, order to show cause (Doc. 8) is DISCHARGED; and 4 2. The parties are directed to appear for a Scheduling Conference on August 21, 2025, at 5 10:00 AM. The parties shall file an updated Joint Scheduling Report one (1) full week 6 prior to the Scheduling Conference that shall be e-emailed, in Word format, to 7 cdborders @caed.uscourts.gov. See (Doc. 2 at 2). 8 [T IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 18, 2025 | hr 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28