Gonzalez v. CGI Federal Inc. et al

1
26-cv-01018-AJB-BLM
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
MANUEL GONZALEZ, on behalf of
other similarly situated employees of
Defendants,
Plaintiff,
v.
CGI FEDERAL INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 26-cv-01018-AJB-BLM
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION
TO STAY CASE PENDING
MEDIATION
(Doc. No. 6)
Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to stay the instant action in order “to
preserve party and judicial resources as the Parties seek to resolve this case through
mediation[.]” (Doc. No. 6.) The parties state that they “have selected Hunter Hughes as the
private mediator and have confirmed a mediation date of July 10, 2026.” (Id. at 3.) To that
end, the parties seek to stay this case until September 8, 2026. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed the complaint on December 2, 2025, in state court, and Defendants
removed the action on February 17, 2026, concurrently filing an answer. (See Doc. Nos. 1;
4.) Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major issued an Order setting an Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) for March 26, 2026. (Doc. No. 5.) “The purpose of the
ENE is to permit an informal discussion between the attorneys and the settlement judge of
Case 3:26-cv-01018-AJB-BLM Document 7 Filed 03/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-01018-AJB-BLM
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
every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to achieve an early resolution of the case.” (Id. at
1.) See also CivLR 16.1.c.1 (“Within forty-five (45) days of the filing of an answer, counsel
and the parties must appear before the assigned judge for an early neutral evaluation
conference; this appearance must be made with complete authority to discuss and enter into
settlement.”). On March 11, 2026, the parties reached an agreement to participate in the
July Mediation. (Doc. No. 6-1, Decl. of Nicholas J. Ferraro, ¶ 4.)
In the instant motion, the parties fail to address why vacating the ENE—this
district’s mandatory early resolution mechanism provided at no cost to the parties—is
warranted. Moreover, the possibility of settlement at private mediation in four months-time
does not warrant staying the case for six months. Mediation, unlike arbitration, is a non-
binding method of dispute resolution that seeks to help litigants voluntarily reach their own
agreement. See, e.g., Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 146 Cal. App. 4th 536, 540 (2007).
There is no guarantee—despite the parties’ good intentions—that this action will be
resolved by the July Mediation. In the interim, this action will languish on the Court’s
docket, discovery may grow stale, and the interests of justice and efficiency will be
undermined. In fact, if the parties fail to settle at the July Mediation, this action will be
approaching a year old with discovery just commencing. As such, a nearly six-month stay
is not warranted under the circumstances presented by the parties.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ joint motion. The
Order setting ENE issued by Judge Major remains in full effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 12, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01018-AJB-BLM Document 7 Filed 03/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2