American Ice Machine Company v. Modern Ice Equipment Company, Inc., et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jeffrey S. White (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff filed a fifth motion to modify the case scheduling order to extend discovery deadlines, citing pending depositions and an expert's withdrawal. The Court denied the motion, citing its prior warning that no further extensions would be granted and the plaintiff's failure to show diligence or good cause.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Case Scheduling Order“Because the Court explained that no further extensions would be granted and Plaintiff has not made a showing of diligence or good cause, the Court DENIES the Motion to Modify Case Scheduling Order.” | agree with court The court's decision is consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Ninth Circuit's precedent regarding the modification of scheduling orders. The court correctly identified that the plaintiff failed to meet the 'good cause' standard, particularly given the history of repeated motions and the failure to comply with local chambers rules regarding notice and disclosure of prior requests. The court's reliance on its prior order and the plaintiff's lack of diligence supports the denial. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the correct standard (good cause/diligence) and appropriate Ninth Circuit authority. It accurately reflects the procedural history and the plaintiff's failure to comply with local rules. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for a denial based on lack of good cause and prior warnings.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 AMERICAN ICE MACHINE Case No.: 24-CV-02083-H-BJW COMPANY, 15 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 16 MOTION TO MODIFY CASE v. SCHEDULING ORDER 17 MODERN ICE EQUIPMENT 18 [ECF No. 58] COMPANY, INC., et al., 19 Defendants. 20 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify the Case Scheduling Order that 22 was filed on April 2, 2026, ECF No. 58. This is the fifth motipon seeking to push out 23 deadlines in this case. See ECF Nos. 48, 51, 54, 56, 58. In the Court’s order on the 24 previous motion, the Court stated, “The Court will not entertain any further efforts to 25 extend the scheduling deadlines in this case.” ECF No. 57 at 2. The Court also 26 admonished counsel that its chambers rules require counsel to “make any requests to 27 continue scheduling order deadlines no less than seven calendar days before the affected 28 1 || date, [and] to include the number of previous requests for continuance[. ECF No. 57 at 2 || 1-2. Among the requested extensions, Plaintiff seeks to extend the deadline for fact 3 || discovery, which passed on March 13, 2026—nearly three weeks before this motion was 4 || filed. ECF Nos. 57, 58. And counsel again failed to include the number of previous 5 requests. See ECF No. 58. 6 As reasons for the requested extensions, Plaintiff lists (1) the need to take three 7 ||remaining party depositions, which “were taken off calendar to allow the parties to 8 || engage in settlement discussions in good faith” and (2) the fact that Plaintiff's expert 9 || notified counsel “that he is no longer able to testify in this matter.” ECF No 58 at 1-2. 10 “A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be 11 || cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 12 ||975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 13 || Because the Court explained that no further extensions would be granted and Plaintiff has 14 || not made a showing of diligence or good cause, the Court DENIES the Motion to Modify 15 || Case Scheduling Order. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: April 15, 2026. 18 20 Ho an J. White United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28