Menke v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to amend the scheduling order to continue all remaining pre-trial deadlines by 120 days. The court denied the requested 120-day extension for lack of good cause but granted a shorter, specific continuance of approximately 60 days for most deadlines.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denied the request to continue all remaining pre-trial deadlines by 120 days.“Here, the Court does not find good cause to grant the extension as requested.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Rule 16(b)(4) 'good cause' standard, which focuses on the reasonable diligence of the moving party. The court found that the parties had not demonstrated sufficient diligence because discovery was not stayed, the motion failed to address the status of discovery, and the delay in vehicle repairs was not sufficiently justified given prior representations that the vehicle could be towed. The court's decision to deny the full 120-day extension while acknowledging the parties' efforts to settle is a reasonable exercise of discretion under the cited authorities. |
Granted a shorter continuance of approximately 60 days for specific pre-trial deadlines.“Despite the above, the Court does find it appropriate grant a shorter continuance to accommodate Plaintiff’s unavailability, illness, and ensuing self-quarantine, and the amount of time necessary for Defendants to complete its repair efforts.” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to grant a partial extension based on specific, albeit limited, good cause (plaintiff's illness and the time needed for repairs). This is a permissible modification of the scheduling order under Rule 16(b)(4) and aligns with the court's finding that the full 120-day extension was not justified. The specific dates provided in the order reflect this shorter continuance. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Rule 16(b)(4) good cause) and cites the correct Ninth Circuit precedent defining that standard. The court's analysis of the facts (lack of discovery progress, unexplained delay in repairs) supports its conclusion that the full 120-day extension was not justified. The decision to grant a shorter extension is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning or missing authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICK MENKE, et al., Case No.: 20cv1126-W-LL 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTHAMERICA, LLC, et al., 15 [ECF No. 23] Defendants. 16 17 18 Currently before the Court is the Parties’ “Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling 19 Order.” ECF No. 23. The Parties request that the Court continue all remaining pre-trial 20 deadlines in this case by 120 days. Id. at 2. In support, the Parties state that they have 21 been “diligently working together to coordinate the repair of Plaintiff’s vehicle” since the 22 Court’s Early Neutral Evaluation on September 14, 2020 and “said repairs were 23 originally set to commence in early November.” Id. However, one of the Plaintiffs was 24 out of town through November 16, 2020 traveling, became ill afterwards, and self- 25 quarantined. Id. In light of the above, the Parties state that they are “still working to 26 coordinate” the repair of Plaintiffs’ vehicle and expect it to take approximately three 27 weeks once commenced, after which additional time will be necessary to determine if the 28 repairs are to Plaintiffs’ satisfaction. Id. 1 Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, the dates set forth therein may be 2 modified only “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); 3 see also ECF No. 17 at 8 (stating that the Court will not modify the dates and times set 4 forth in the Scheduling Order “except for good cause shown.”). The Rule 16 good cause 5 standard focuses on the “reasonable diligence” of the moving party. Noyes v. Kelly 6 Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007). Essentially, “the focus of the inquiry is 7 upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth 8 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 9 Here, the Court does not find good cause to grant the extension as requested. While 10 the Court appreciates Parties’ substantial efforts to informally resolve the case since the 11 Court’s Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, discovery in this action has not been 12 stayed. The Parties’ Joint Motion does not mention what discovery—if any—the Parties 13 have thus far conducted and what discovery remains. The Court is confident the Parties 14 will be able to engage in efforts to informally resolve this case, while also simultaneously 15 diligently completing discovery, so as not to further delay this case should settlement 16 efforts prove unsuccessful. Finally, the Court is unclear as to why repairs to Plaintiffs’ 17 vehicle have not yet commenced. The Court notes during the attorneys-only telephonic 18 status conference held on November 23, 2020 [ECF No. 22], the Parties represented that 19 Plaintiffs’ vehicle could be brought to the repair facility by another individual or be 20 towed there. The Court advises the Parties to expedite this process to the extent possible. 21 Despite the above, the Court does find it appropriate grant a shorter continuance to 22 accommodate Plaintiff’s unavailability, illness, and ensuing self-quarantine, and the 23 amount of time necessary for Defendants to complete its repair efforts. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 For these reasons, Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Parties’ 2 Joint Motion as follows: 3 4 Current Date New Date 5 Fact Discovery Deadline January 14, 2021 March 15, 2021 6 Expert Designations February 12, 2021 April 13, 2021 7 Supplemental Expert February 26, 2021 April 27, 2021 8 Designations 9 Expert Disclosures March 26, 2021 May 25, 2021 10 Rebuttal Expert April 9, 2021 June 8, 2021 11 Disclosures 12 Expert Discovery May 10, 2021 July 9, 2021 13 Pretrial Motions June 10, 2021 August 9, 2021 14 Mandatory Settlement September 7, 2021 at October 26, 2021 at 1:30 15 Conference 1:30 p.m. p.m. 16 Mandatory Settlement August 30, 2021 October 18, 2021 17 Conference Briefs 18 Pretrial Disclosures September 13, 2021 November 8, 2021 19 Notice of Willingness to September 13, 2021 November 8, 2021 Engage in Further 20 Settlement Conference 21 Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) September 20, 2021 November 15, 2021 22 Requirements 23 Proposed Pretrial Order September 27, 2021 November 22, 2021 24 Lodging of Pretrial Order October 4, 2021 November 29, 2021 25 Informal Letter Briefs October 13, 2021 December 8, 2021 26 Pretrial Conference October 18, 2021 at December 13, 2021 at 27 10:30 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 28 All other requirements remain as set. See ECF No. 17. The Parties are advised 2 || that no further extensions will be granted absent exceptional circumstances. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 ||Dated: December 8, 2020 NO 6 ce 7 Honorable Linda Lopez United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28