ORDER

WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for an Order Striking Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 69).

I. Background

Plaintiff experienced problems with a 2011 BMW 550i vehicle manufactured and distributed by BMW. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims against BMW under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, provisions of the California Vehicle Code, and common law fraud. (ECF No. 1-3).

On November 13, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes extended the pre-trial motion deadline from February 21, 2019 to March 1, 2019. (ECF No. 48 at 3). Defendant filed the Motion for Summary Judgment on March 25, 2019. (ECF No. 66). On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Ex Parte Application for an Order Striking Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 69). On April 12, 2019, Defendant filed Opposition. (ECF No. 78). On April 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 80).

II. Contentions

Plaintiff contends that the Court should strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment because it is "both untimely and premature." (ECF No. 69-1 at 5). Plaintiff contends that it is untimely because the Court's deadline to file pretrial motions was March 1, 2019, and Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment twenty-four days later. Id. Plaintiff contends that the Motion for Summary Judgment is premature because Defendant had not yet provided discovery necessary for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Id. at 5-6.

Defendant contends that the Motion for Summary Judgment was not filed late because "discovery has not yet been completed." (ECF No. 78 at 1). Defendant asserts that Plaintiff "is the quintessential example of attempting to have it both ways." Id.

III. Ruling of the Court

The scheduling order in this matter required that Defendant file any pre-trial motions by March 1, 2019. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on March 25, 2019.

Despite the March 1, 2019 deadline, Defendant asserts that its Motion for Summary Judgment was not untimely because "discovery has not yet been completed." (ECF No. 78 at 1). On April 9, 2019, Magistrate Judge Stormes stated that BMW "failed to abide by the Court's [discovery] deadline without explanation" and Defendant's time to comply with the Court's discovery order "is long overdue." (ECF No. 77 at 3, 5). Magistrate Judge Stormes imposed prospective sanctions that would issue if BMW did not file a declaration certifying compliance by April 23, 2019. (ECF No. 77 at 5-6). On April 23, 2019, Defendant filed the declarations of Robert Brown (ECF No. 86) and Athena Yontz (ECF No. 87) stating that discovery was complete.

The record reflects that discovery in this matter was not complete at the time Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment because Defendant failed to comply with the Court's discovery deadlines. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was untimely, and Defendant has not shown good cause why the untimely motion should be permitted. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) ("A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.") (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Me. 1985)). Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for an Order Striking Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69) is granted.

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for an Order Striking Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66) from the docket. Defendant, upon a showing of good cause, may request leave to file a motion for summary judgment outside of the time provided in the scheduling order.