Adams v. San Diego, County of
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
Defendants filed an ex parte motion for leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment asserting qualified immunity after the dispositive motion deadline had passed. The court denied the motion, finding no good cause or diligence to modify the scheduling order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' ex parte motion for leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment is denied.“The motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) to modify a scheduling order. The order recites that the deadline passed over a year prior, that a previous request for extension was denied for lack of good cause, and that no new circumstances have arisen. The reliance on the Ninth Circuit precedent in Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. is appropriate for this context. The decision to deny the motion to preserve the pretrial schedule and avoid delay in an already aged case is consistent with the interests of judicial economy and the strictness of scheduling orders. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sufficient. It identifies the procedural history, the specific rule governing the motion (Rule 16), the applicable standard (good cause/diligence), and the factual basis for the denial (lack of diligence, prior denial, no new circumstances, and the need to avoid delay). It correctly cites the controlling Ninth Circuit authority for the standard of review.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES ADAMS III Case No.: 16cv2161-LAB (AHG)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 13 v. MOTION TO FILE UNTIMELY MOTION FOR PARTIAL 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al. SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendants. 16 17 This case was originally assigned to District Judge Thomas Whelan. By an 18 order issued November 2, 2018, all dispositive motions were to have been filed by 19 April 5, 2019. (See Docket no. 44.) On May 17, 2019, the Court denied 20 Defendants’ ex parte motion to extend the date, finding no good cause for the 21 extension. (See Docket no. 50.) After several continuances, the final pretrial 22 conference was held December 9, and on December 10 Judge Whelan issued the 23 final pretrial order, which scheduled trial to commence on May 27, 2020. (Docket 24 no. 63.) That order set the time for trial at seven days. 25 On February 14, Judge Whelan recused, and the case was reassigned to 26 the undersigned District Judge. On February 21, the Court issued an order 27 vacating the trial date, notifying the parties it was inclined to set a shorter time for 28 trial, and required the parties to begin drafting a revised proposed final pretrial 1 order that contemplates a shorter trial. The Court directed the parties to stipulate 2 to as many facts as possible and to the admission of as much evidence as 3 possible, to identify particular issues of fact to be submitted to the jury, and to 4 resolve as many issues of law as possible by either stipulations or motions in 5 limine. The proposed pretrial order was to be lodged in editable electronic format 6 by Thursday, April 30. The Court also ordered counsel to appear for a pretrial 7 conference on Monday, May 18 at 12:00 noon. 8 Defendants have now filed an ex parte motion for leave to file a motion for 9 partial summary judgment, raising the defense of qualified immunity as to two 10 causes of action. (Docket no. 69.) 11 The Court’s February 21 order contemplated motions in limine, not untimely 12 dispositive motions. Because the motion cutoff date passed over a year ago, 13 granting leave to file a dispositive motion now would also effectively amend the 14 scheduling order, implicating Rule 16. Among other things, Rule 16 requires a 15 showing of diligence. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 16 609 (9th Cir. 1992). That showing has not been made. No good cause existed last 17 May (see Docket no. 50), and nothing has happened since then to change it. At 18 the time they allowed the deadline to pass, Defendants had no basis for estimating 19 the amount of time that would be allotted for trial. Allowing a late motion now would 20 have the effect of disrupting the pretrial schedule, and delaying still longer the 21 adjudication of this already old case. See 28 U.S.C. 476(a)(3) (requiring public 22 reporting of cases pending for longer than three years). The motion is DENIED. 23 The case is not stayed. Counsel are expected to file or lodge documents 24 electronically, and should monitor the Court’s website for information about 25 changes to Court operations occasioned by the COVID-19 public emergency. The 26 Court may continue deadlines or order telephonic appearances sua sponte based 27 on its own assessment. But counsel’s working assumption should be that they 28 must comply with deadlines as set. 1 If compliance with deadlines becomes impractical or impossible, they should 2 ||seek relief by joint or ex parte motion. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||Dated: April 13, 2020 6 / Miers 4. (Bug 7 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 8 Chief United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28