Evan Potter and Khang Nguyen, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v. United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to continue the class certification deadline from November 6, 2026, to March 8, 2027, to allow for settlement discussions and mediation. The court granted the motion in part, extending the deadline by only 60 days to January 5, 2026, while denying the extension for all other pretrial deadlines.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Continue Scheduling Order Deadlines granted in part“the Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The deadline to file the motion for class certification is extended by sixty (60) days to January 5, 2026.” | agree with court The court applied the Rule 16(b) 'good cause' standard, which requires a showing of diligence. The court found the parties failed to justify the full four-month extension but acknowledged their efforts toward settlement. Granting a partial extension is a discretionary decision within the court's authority to manage the docket, and the reasoning provided (lack of justification for the full time vs. appreciation for settlement efforts) is consistent with the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for modifying a scheduling order under Rule 16(b) and cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Johnson and Zivkovic). The court explicitly applies the standard by noting the parties' failure to justify the full extension but balances this against the interest in settlement. The result is defensible and follows from the cited law.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
possible biasOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVAN POTTER AND KHANG Lead Case No.: 25-cv-3286-AJB-MSB NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of 12 Consolidated with: themselves and all others similarly Case No.: 26-cv-2440-AJB-MSB 13 situated, and on behalf of Case No.: 26-cv-2443-AJB-MSB other aggrieved employees 14 pursuant to the California Private ORDER GRANTING IN PART JOINT 15 Attorneys General Act, MOTION TO CONTINUE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINE Plaintiffs, 17 v. (Doc. No. 31) 18 CALIFORNIA FINE WINE & SPIRITS 19 LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 20 Defendants. 21 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Scheduling Order 22 Deadlines. (Doc. No. 31.) The parties seek to continue the current November 6, 2026 class 23 certification deadline to March 8, 2027, so that the parties can “focus on informal discovery 24 and settlement discussions and mediation, without having to simultaneously expend 25 significant time and resources in preparing for class certification and trial.” (Id. at 6) The 26 parties are currently scheduled to participate in a mediation on November 13, 2026. (Id. at 27 5.) 28 l “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 2 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence 3 || of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 4 || 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot 5 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Id. (quoting 6 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment). “If the party seeking 7 || the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should 8 ||not be granted.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) 9 || (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 10 Here, the parties fail to justify the need for an additional four months after mediation 11 move for class certification. However, the Court appreciates the parties’ efforts in 12 ||resolving this matter informally, and thus the Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The 13 ||deadline to file the motion for class certification is extended by sixty (60) days to 14 || January 5, 2026. The Court cautions the parties that all other deadlines, including the 15 || dispositive motion deadline and pretrial dates, will not be extended absent extraordinary 16 || circumstances. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: August 14, 2026 © ¢ 19 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28