Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 12, 2024

Miller v. Nature's Path Foods, Inc.

Judge
Jon Tigar
Docket
4:23-cv-05711
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Miller v. Nature’s Path Foods, Judge Tigar granted Defendant’s request to continue the case management conference to June 18, 2024.

Who this affects

Ian Miller, Nature’s Path Foods, Inc., and their lawyers were affected by the revised case-management schedule.

What happened

Miller v. Nature’s Path Foods, Inc. concerns Defendant’s request to postpone the February 20, 2024 case management conference. Defendant said its new counsel had been engaged less than a month earlier and needed time to prepare.

Plaintiff opposed any continuance. Defendant also noted that the Court often postpones case management conferences when motions to dismiss are pending. The Court chose between Defendant’s proposed extension and Plaintiff’s proposal to hold the conference without a postponement.

Judge Jon S. Tigar granted Defendant’s request. The conference was moved to June 18, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., and an updated joint case management statement was made due June 11, 2024.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Miller v. Nature's Path Foods, Inc. · No. 4:23-cv-05711
Judge
Jon Tigar
Date
Feb. 12, 2024

Background

Defendant Nature’s Path Foods, Inc. filed an administrative motion to continue the February 20, 2024 case management conference. The underlying lawsuit concerns Plaintiff Ian Miller’s claims that the company used protein claims on the front of breakfast and snack product packages without including the percentage of daily value for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel.

Parties’ Positions and Court’s Reasoning

Defendant explained that new counsel had been engaged less than a month earlier and requested additional time to become familiar with the case. Defendant also pointed out that the Court often continues case management conferences when motions to dismiss are pending. Plaintiff opposed continuing the conference but did not propose an alternative extension; Plaintiff instead proposed holding the conference as scheduled.

The Court concluded that a modest extension was appropriate to allow Defendant’s new counsel to get up to speed. It also considered its practice of continuing case management conferences while motions to dismiss are pending. The Court used the parties’ competing proposals to select the more reasonable scheduling option.

Ruling

Judge Jon S. Tigar granted Defendant’s administrative motion to continue the case management conference. The Court continued the February 20, 2024 conference to June 18, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. An updated joint case management statement was due June 11, 2024. This order addressed scheduling and did not decide the merits of Plaintiff’s claims or Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.