Adler et al v. Volume Services, Inc. et al

1
25-cv-01939-AJB-BJW
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
CASEY ADLER and CODY
URQUHART, individuals, on behalf of
themselves, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
VOLUME SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-01939-AJB-BJW
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION
TO STAY CASE PENDING
MEDIATION
(Doc. No. 19)
Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to stay the instant action pending
mediation. (Doc. No. 19.) The parties state that they “are exploring settlement options that
could resolve this matter in its entirety and have scheduled a mediation with mediator
David Phillips, Esq. on March 25, 2026 [(the “Mediation”)].” (Id. at 2.) As such, the parties
“contend this stay will allow them to focus their efforts on mediation rather than formal
discovery and litigation, which will conserve the Parties’ and judicial resources and lead
to a higher likelihood of a successful mediation.” (Id.)
Plaintiffs filed the complaint on June 26, 2025, in state court, and Defendants
removed the action on July 30, 2025, concurrently filing an answer. (See Doc. No. 1.)
Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner issued an Order setting an Early Neutral Evaluation
Case 3:25-cv-01939-AJB-BJW Document 20 Filed 12/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
25-cv-01939-AJB-BJW
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
Conference (“ENE”) for September 26, 2025. (Doc. No. 5.) In response, the parties sought
to continue the ENE until after the Mediation, in effect asking the Court to stay the case at
that juncture. (See Doc. No. 9.) Judge Leshner denied the motion for lack of good cause.
(Doc. No. 10.) The parties attended the ENE on September 26, 2025, but did not reach
settlement at that time. (Doc. No. 15.) The Court then issued a Scheduling Order. (See Doc.
Nos. 17; 18.)
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 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
Mediation, this action will be nearly a year old with discovery just commencing. As such,
a nearly fourth-month stay is not warranted under the circumstances presented by the
parties. It is time to fish or cut bait.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ joint motion. The
Scheduling Order issued by Magistrate Judge Brian J. White (see Doc. Nos. 17; 18)
remains in full effect.1 The parties are welcome to contact the chambers of Judge White to
request a voluntary settlement conference at any time while the case progresses through
discovery. See J. White Chambers R. § III.d.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 3, 2025
1 	The parties are cautioned that any requests to amend the Scheduling Order must comply with all
applicable Civil Local and Chambers Rules regarding timeliness and substance. See, e.g., J. White
Chambers R. § V (setting forth requirements for amendments to scheduling order deadlines).
Case 3:25-cv-01939-AJB-BJW Document 20 Filed 12/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2