Cavanaugh v. County of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SHANE CAVANAUGH; and Case No.: 18cv2557-BEN-LL THE ESTATE OF RICHARD 11 BOULANGER, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 12 DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiffs, EX PARTE MOTION TO 13 v. CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS 14 DEADLINE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 65] 16 17 On November 6, 2020, Defendants filed an ex parte motion requesting that the Court 18 continue for at least thirty days the parties’ deadline to file pretrial motions, which is 19 November 9, 2020. ECF No. 65. Plaintiffs filed an opposition the same day. ECF No. 66. 20 Defendants’ request comes about one month after the Court issued an order on 21 October 5, 2020 that granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ ex parte motion to 22 continue all remaining pretrial deadlines. ECF No. 62. In that order, the Court found that 23 “an extension of the pretrial motions filing deadline will allow the Court to rule on the 24 [pending] motion to dismiss and clarify which causes of action remain before motions for 25 summary judgment are due and before final trial preparation occurs in the remaining 26 deadlines.” Id. at 4. The Court then extended the deadline to file pretrial motions from 27 October 9, 2020 to November 9, 2020 and stated that “[b]arring any other extraordinary 28 circumstances, if the new deadline arrives and the motion to dismiss has still not been ruled 1 on, this Court will not grant a further continuance to the pretrial motions filing deadline. 2 Given the age of this action, additional future extensions will begin to tip the scale from 3 efficiency and economy to prejudice to Plaintiffs.” Id. at 5. 4 Once a Rule 161 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified 5 only “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also 6 ECF No. 23 at 7 (stating that dates and times will not be modified except for good cause 7 shown). The Rule 16 good cause standard focuses on the “reasonable diligence” of the 8 moving party. Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation 9 omitted). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 10 modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is 11 upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth 12 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 13 Defendants claim that they were unable to obtain a motion hearing date for their 14 pretrial motions, which is a requirement for filing a motion for summary judgment. ECF 15 No. 65 at 2 (citing CivLR 7.1(b) and ECF No. 23, ¶ 8). They contend that they cannot file 16 their motion for summary judgment without a hearing date, which constitutes an 17 extraordinary circumstance warranting a continuation of the pretrial motions filing 18 deadline by at least thirty days. Id. Defendants also contend that if the deadline is not 19 extended and a ruling on the motion to dismiss is issued after the deadline, they will be 20 deprived of either (1) filing a motion for summary judgment on the operative complaint if 21 the motion to dismiss is denied and Plaintiffs are given leave to amend, or (2) the 22 opportunity to review the ruling on the motion to dismiss before filing a motion for 23 summary judgment. ECF No. 65 at 2–3. 24 Plaintiffs argue that any further continuance is unfair to Plaintiffs “who deserve their 25 day in Court.” ECF No. 66 at 3. They reiterate the Court’s October 5, 2020 order stating 26 27 1 Citations of rules in this order refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless 28 1 ||that further extensions of the pretrial motions filing deadline will not be given barring 2 extraordinary circumstances. Id. 3 Because the pretrial motions filing deadline will primarily affect the district judge, 4 || the Court consulted Judge Benitez’s chambers. A motion hearing date is required before a 5 ||motion may be filed, and once it has been obtained, the motion and supporting documents 6 be filed a minimum of twenty-eight days prior to the date for which the matter 1s 7 ||noticed. CivLR 7.1(e)(1). There appears to be a miscommunication in that Plaintiffs were 8 || directed by the court clerk to call again to obtain a motion hearing date. Nevertheless, the 9 ||Court finds that in this circumstance, the motion hearing date will be a better guide in 10 || determining the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment than the current deadline 11 November 9, 2020. The Court finds that in this case, the potential mismatch of a 12 || November 9, 2020 deadline and the date that will be twenty-eight days prior to the noticed 13 motion hearing date is an extraordinary circumstance warranting a short continuance. No 14 || other pretrial deadlines will be affected, thus preventing a delay to trial that would prejudice 15 || Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to GRANT IN PART and DENY IN 16 || PART Defendants’ ex parte motion as follows: 17 1. The current November 9, 2020 deadline to file pretrial motions is 18 || VACATED. 19 2. On or before November 10, 2020, Defendants shall obtain a motion hearing 20 for their motion for summary judgment. The filing deadline will be a minimum of 21 ||twenty-eight days prior to the noticed motion hearing date, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 22 ||7.1(e)(1). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ||Dated: November 9, 2020 KO 25 QF 26 Honorable Linda Lopez 34 United States Magistrate Judge 28