McMillan v. Valley Rubber & Gasket Company, Inc., 2:14-cv-01359-TLN-KJN. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160517760
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 13, 2016
Latest Update: May 13, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS EX-PARTE REQUEST TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The Court has reviewed Defendants Valley Rubber & Gasket Company, Inc. and Lewis-Goetz and Company, Inc.'s (Defendants) Ex Parte Application to Amend the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 55.) Plainitff David E. McMillan (Plaintiff) opposes Defendants' motion. (ECF No. 62.) The Court finds that Defendants' explanation of mistaking the April 21, 2016, Dispositive Motion hearing deadline as a
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS EX-PARTE REQUEST TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The Court has reviewed Defendants Valley Rubber & Gasket Company, Inc. and Lewis-Goetz and Company, Inc.'s (Defendants) Ex Parte Application to Amend the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 55.) Plainitff David E. McMillan (Plaintiff) opposes Defendants' motion. (ECF No. 62.) The Court finds that Defendants' explanation of mistaking the April 21, 2016, Dispositive Motion hearing deadline as a f..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS EX-PARTE REQUEST TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed Defendants Valley Rubber & Gasket Company, Inc. and Lewis-Goetz and Company, Inc.'s (Defendants) Ex Parte Application to Amend the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 55.) Plainitff David E. McMillan (Plaintiff) opposes Defendants' motion. (ECF No. 62.) The Court finds that Defendants' explanation of mistaking the April 21, 2016, Dispositive Motion hearing deadline as a filing deadline is reasonable. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) and good cause appearing, Defendants' Application is GRANTED. The Court orders the Scheduling Order (ECF Nos. 24 & 28) be modified to reflect that the April 21, 2016, Dispositive Motion date was a filing deadline. The Court also hereby submits Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement (ECF No. 49) without oral argument. The Court notes that Defendants' Motion to Compel a Mental Examination and to Modify the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 43) is still under consideration by the Court and will be addressed in a combined order with Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Additional amendments to the Scheduling Order (ECF Nos. 24 & 28) will be ordered as necessary pending the Court's ruling on Defendants' pending motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
