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 THE MOTION
TO STAY PROCEEDINGS OR, IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, CONTINUE
THE EARLY NEUTRAL
EVALUATION
[Dkt. No. 30]
Before the Court is Defendant’s February 18, 2026, Motion to Stay Proceedings or,
in the Alternative, Continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (hereafter “Motion”) (Dkt. No.
30) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (hereafter “Opposition”) (Dkt. No. 31). The
Motion seeks to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) currently set for February
26, 2026, at 02:00 PM before United States Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu. (See Dkt. No.
28). 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 also 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
Case 3:25-cv-00814-BAS-SBC Document 32 Filed 02/20/26 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
there is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607
(9th Cir. 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 (1) they are unavailable to attend the
scheduled ENE and (2) a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is currently pending (Dkt.
No. 29), the resolution of which may narrow or clarify the issues for purposes of settlement
discussions. Plaintiff argues that further delay will result in prejudice (Dkt. No. 31 at 2).
The Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s concern. However, an ENE is intended to facilitate
meaningful settlement discussions, which requires the participation of counsel fully
prepared and authorized to engage in resolution efforts. Conducting the ENE without such
participation would undermine its purpose and expend judicial resources inefficiently.
Moreover, the resolution of the pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings may
materially affect the scope of the claims and defenses at issue. Allowing the Court to
address that motion before the ENE will better situate the parties to evaluate their
respective positions and engage in informed settlement discussions. Under these
circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause to continue the
ENE.
The Court, however, finds no basis to stay the proceedings in their entirety. A stay
of proceedings is an extraordinary remedy that is not granted as a matter of course.
Defendant has not shown that continuing to litigate this action pending resolution of the
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings would impose undue hardship, risk inconsistent
rulings, or otherwise prejudice the orderly administration of the case. Nor has Defendant
demonstrated that a stay would promote judicial economy beyond the limited scheduling
adjustment already addressed. Accordingly, the request to stay proceedings is DENIED.
///
///
Case 3:25-cv-00814-BAS-SBC Document 32 Filed 02/20/26 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 the Motion.
The Court continues the ENE until April 8, 2026, at 10:00 AM. 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: February 20, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00814-BAS-SBC Document 32 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3