Aragon v. Experian Data Corporation

1
3:25-cv-0814-BAS-SBC
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
DANIEL ARAGON,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-0814-BAS-SBC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
CONTINUE ENE AND STAY
PROCEEDINGS
[Dkt. No. 25]
Before the Court is Defendant’s January 21, 2026, Motion to Continue Early Neutral
Evaluation and Stay Proceedings (hereafter “Motion”) (Dkt. No. 25) and Plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition (hereafter “Opposition”) (Dkt. No. 26). The Motion seeks to
continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) currently set for January 28, 2026, at 10:00
AM before United States Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu. (See Dkt. No. 22). After duly
considering the submissions, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART for the reasons set forth below.
Parties seeking to continue an ENE must demonstrate good cause. (Dkt. No. 22 at 3-
4 (Counsel must file a motion “setting forth good cause for the request”); see Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(b) (“[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for
good cause, extend the time”). Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there
is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir.
Case 3:25-cv-00814-BAS-SBC Document 28 Filed 01/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-0814-BAS-SBC
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
1992); Olvera v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-cv-789-H-AHG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117769,
at *2, *4-*5 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 2025). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has
been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon
Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010).
Here, Defendant represents to the Court that this case is one of three active lawsuits
filed by Plaintiff against Experian with the other two pending in the San Diego Superior
Court, Small Claims Division (Dkt. No. 25 at 1). Defendant argues that the “allegations in
Small Claims Case 0269 are nearly identical to those in this present lawsuit” (Dkt. No. 25
at 2) and that requiring the parties to participate in an ENE would “prejudice the parties as
it would potentially result in conflicting outcomes regarding the same accounts and
claims.” (Dkt. No. 25 at 2). As such, Defendant requests a continuance of the ENE by at
least sixty-days (Dkt. No. 25 at 1).
In light of Defendant’s claims, the Court finds a thirty-day continuance is prudent.
The Small Claims Case 4553 has a hearing on January 28, 2026 (Dkt. No. 25 at 3) and the
Small Claims Case 0269 has a settlement deadline of February 15, 2026, (Dkt. No. 25 at
2). The Court finds it an efficient use of judicial resources to continue the ENE until after
these Small Claims cases have progressed. Defendant has demonstrated good cause that
the claims of all three cases are intertwined and would affect how the parties act at the
ENE. While Plaintiff opposes the continuance stating that proceeding with the ENE creates
no inefficiency or prejudice (Dkt. No. 26 at 7), the Court finds that a thirty-day continuance
strikes the right balance between using judicial resources efficiency with the need to hold
an ENE early in a case.
However, the Court does not find reason to stay the proceedings in its entirety.
Defendant has not shown that this case is so dependent on the outcome of the Small Claims
cases such that this matter must be stayed until those cases are completely resolved.
///
///
///
Case 3:25-cv-00814-BAS-SBC Document 28 Filed 01/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-0814-BAS-SBC
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
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s
Motion to Continue the ENE and Stay Proceedings. The Court continues the ENE until
February 26, 2026, at 02:00 PM. If the case does not settle, the Court will move into the
Case Management Conference at that time. The parties must comply with all of the
requirements set forth in the Court’s December 02, 2025, Notice and Order for Early
Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference. (Dkt. No. 22) prior to
that ENE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00814-BAS-SBC Document 28 Filed 01/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3