McAdams v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion and stipulation to extend all remaining pretrial deadlines by six months, primarily to await a ruling on the defendant's pending motion for judgment on the pleadings and to avoid unnecessary expert discovery costs. The court denied the motion, finding that the parties failed to demonstrate good cause for the modification and that their current level of diligence was insufficient to justify such a significant delay.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion and Stipulation to Extend Case Deadlines denied“For the reasons set forth above, the parties’ motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) for modifying a scheduling order. The parties' primary justification for the extension was to wait for a ruling on a pending dispositive motion, which is generally not considered 'good cause' for extending discovery deadlines, particularly when the parties have not demonstrated an inability to complete the necessary discovery within the existing timeframe. The court's observation that the parties had not argued they could not complete discovery before the class certification deadline, but merely preferred to wait, supports the denial. Additionally, the court noted that the parties' current discovery efforts (interrogatories, RFPs, and two productions) were insufficient to justify a six-month extension. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Rule 16(b)(4) good cause) and cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent (Noyes and Johnson) to define that standard. The court then applies the standard to the specific facts presented in the joint motion, noting the lack of legal support for a stay, the lack of explanation for the need for more time, the fact that discovery was open and deadlines were not imminent, and the insufficiency of the parties' current diligence to justify a six-month extension. The reasoning directly answers the motion with the right authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 Case No.: 20CV2202-L(BLM) 7 PIA MCADAMS, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, 8 ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION AND Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO EXTEND CASE 9 DEADLINES v. 10 [ECF No. 42] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC AND DOES 1- 11 10, 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 On March 4, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion and Stipulation to Extend Case 16 Deadlines. ECF No. 42. The parties seek to continue the remaining pretrial deadlines by six 17 months. Id. at 3. In support, the parties state that they have diligently conducted discovery 18 and continue to “work collaboratively on discovery requests pertaining to the production of class 19 data[,]” but Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [see ECF No. 36] that is 20 currently pending and case dispositive if granted. ECF No. 42 at 2. The parties would like 21 “additional time [] to determine what data relating to the putative class number is available and 22 should be produced in advance of class certification” and to “avoid incurring unnecessary costs 23 associated with expert discovery, that may be ultimately unnecessary if the Court grants 24 Nationstar’s MJOP.” Id. 25 Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified only 26 “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Rule 16 good 27 cause standard focuses on the “reasonable diligence” of the moving party. Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 1 95 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating Rule 16(b) scheduling order may be modified for “good cause” based 2 || primarily on diligence of moving party). Essentially, “the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving 3 || party's reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 4 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a court also may consider the “existence or degree of prejudice 5 || to the party opposing the modification... .” Id. 6 Here, the parties essentially seek to stay the case pending resolution of □□□□□□□□□□□ 7 |{motion for judgment on the pleadings. The parties fail to provide any law to support this 8 request. ECF No. 42. Additionally, the parties fail to provide an explanation for why they need 9 || additional time "to determine what data relating to the putative class number is available and 10 ||should be produced in advance of class certification.” Id. at 2. Discovery has been open for 11 ||nearly one hundred days and the motion for class certification is not due for another seventy- 12 ||seven days. The parties do not argue that they cannot complete the desired discovery in time 13 || for Plaintiff's May 23, 2022 motion for class certification deadline, only that they would prefer to 14 || wait for a ruling on Defendant's pending motion before doing so. Furthermore, the parties fail 15 provide good cause for their requested six month extension of case deadlines. Here “the 16 || part[ies’] reasons for seeking modification” are to await ruling on the pending motion for 17 || judgment on the pleadings. This does not constitute good cause. Finally, the parties state that 18 || they have diligently engaged in discovery as Plaintiff has served interrogatories and requests for 19 || production and Defendant has made two document productions. Id. at 2. While the Court 20 || appreciates the parties’ efforts thus far, this level of diligence by the parties is insufficient to 21 advance the case schedule by an additional six months. For the reasons set forth above, the 22 || parties’ motion is DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: 3/8/2022 lobe Mager 25 Hon. Barbara L. Major United States Maqistrate Judde 26 27 28