West v. Ford Motor Company

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JUDY WEST, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01266-KES-CDB 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISCHARGING JANUARY 8, 2026, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 (Docs. 8, 9) FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., 14 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING Defendants, CONFERENCE ON JANUARY 29, 2026, 15 AT 9:00 AM 16 Relevant Background 17 Plaintiffs Judy West and Paula West-Moore (“Plaintiffs”) initiated this action with the 18 filing of a complaint on September 11, 2023, in the County of Kern Superior Court, Case No. 19 BCV-23-103052, against Defendants Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Jim Burke Ford 20 (collectively, “Defendants”), before Defendant Ford removed the case to this Court on September 21 23, 2025. (Doc. 1; Doc. 1-1 Exhibit A). On September 24, 2025, the Court entered an order setting 22 the initial scheduling conference for January 8, 2026, at 9:00 AM. (Doc. 2). In the order, the 23 parties were provided the email address for the undersigned’s courtroom deputy for the parties to 24 request and obtain Zoom teleconference connection details. Id. at 2. Further, the courtroom deputy 25 forwarded the Zoom connection details via email to counsel for the parties in advance of the 26 scheduling conference. 27 On January 8, 2026, the Court convened via Zoom videoconference for the scheduling 1 personally or through counsel. After the Court and Ms. Crable waited for five minutes from the 2 start of the conference for Plaintiffs’ appearance, Nina Sanaia joined the Zoom teleconference but 3 was unprepared to enter an appearance when the case was called due to her experiencing 4 audio/technical difficulties. After troubleshooting that issue, Ms. Sanaia, an un-noticed attorney, 5 entered her appearance on behalf of Plaintiffs, and after the Court questioned why she is not a 6 noticed attorney on the docket, Ms. Sanaia explained that she would file a notice of appearance 7 shortly after the conference. When the Court asked Ms. Sanaia to explain the circumstances of 8 her late appearance, she stated that she was covering for noticed counsel who were busy with trial 9 in an unrelated matter, was only recently provided a link to access the conference, and provided 10 no further details. The Court deemed these explanations unsatisfactory and the undersigned 11 recessed the scheduling conference and notified counsel that a show cause order would follow. 12 That same day, the Court ordered counsel for Plaintiffs to show cause (“OSC”) in writing 13 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely appear at the scheduling conference and 14 for failure to obey this Court’s orders. (Doc. 8). Counsel for Plaintiffs were directed to initiate 15 meet and confer efforts with counsel for Defendant and identify in its response to this OSC at least 16 two proposed dates of mutual availability to reconvene for scheduling conference no earlier than 17 14 days from the date of the order. Id. at 3. 18 Discharging OSC and Setting Scheduling Conference 19 Pending before the Court is counsel for Plaintiffs’ timely response to the OSC, filed on 20 January 12, 2026. (Doc. 9). Counsel for Plaintiffs Elizabeth A. LaRocque declares that she 21 sincerely apologizes to the Court for the untimely appearance of counsel at the initial scheduling 22 conference as she made a mistake that caused her colleague, appearing counsel Nino Sanio, to be 23 late in appearing at said conference. Id. at 2. Counsel LaRocque declares that she failed to properly 24 locate the Courtroom Deputy’s December 30, 2025, email with the Zoom link to the conference, 25 and did not follow up with Ms. Sanio with the link until the Courtroom Deputy resent her the link 26 at 8:08 AM the morning of the conference and Ms. LaRocque thereafter forwarded the link to Ms. 27 Sanio via email at 8:58 AM for the 9:00 AM conference. Id. at 3. Counsel LaRocque declares she 1 | again. Jd. Counsel LaRocque declares she reached out to counsel for Defendant who has indicated 2 | they are agreeable with proposed dates of January 22, 2026, or January 29, 2026, for the reset 3 | scheduling conference. Jd. She requests the Court discharge the OSC without the imposition of sanctions. /d. at 4. 5 To determine whether neglect is excusable, a court must consider four factors: "(1) the 6 | danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on 7 | the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith." 8 | In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 973 (9th Cir. 2007). 9 Having considered these factors, the Court finds counsel for Plaintiffs’ explanation for 10 | Plaintiffs’ failure to timely appear at the scheduling conference the result of excusable neglect 11 | and finds good cause to discharge the order to show cause without the imposition of sanctions. 12 | Additionally, based on the parties’ jointly proposed dates to reconvene for a scheduling 13 | conference, the Court will reset the scheduling conference for January 29, 2026, at 9:00 AM. 14 Conclusion and Order 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 16 1. The January 8, 2026, order to show cause (Doc. 8) is DISCHARGED; and 17 2. The parties are directed to appear for a Scheduling Conference on January 29, 2026, 18 at 9:00 AM and to request from the undersigned’s courtroom deputy clerk Zoom 19 connection information at least 24 hours in advance of the conference. The parties may, 20 but need not, file an updated Joint Scheduling Report one (1) full week prior to the 21 Scheduling Conference that shall be e-emailed, in Word format, to 22 cdborders @caed.uscourts.gov. See (Doc. 2 at 2). 23 [T IS SO ORDERED. 41 Dated: _ January 13, 2026 | Vv Vv RR 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28