Casildo v. Esparza Enterprises, Inc., 1:17-cv-00601-LJO-JLT. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190107467
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO AMEND CASE SCHEDULE (Doc. 35) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . As noted by their stipulation, the Court stayed this case for an extended period to allow a related appeal to be decided and which resulted in the dismissal of the class claims. (Doc. 16) Since that time, the parties have been periodically discussing settlement to no avail. (Doc. 32 at 4; Doc. 35 at 2) During this time, it appears they have not diligently sought to complete discovery and the
Summary: ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO AMEND CASE SCHEDULE (Doc. 35) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . As noted by their stipulation, the Court stayed this case for an extended period to allow a related appeal to be decided and which resulted in the dismissal of the class claims. (Doc. 16) Since that time, the parties have been periodically discussing settlement to no avail. (Doc. 32 at 4; Doc. 35 at 2) During this time, it appears they have not diligently sought to complete discovery and the ..
More
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO AMEND CASE SCHEDULE (Doc. 35)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
As noted by their stipulation, the Court stayed this case for an extended period to allow a related appeal to be decided and which resulted in the dismissal of the class claims. (Doc. 16) Since that time, the parties have been periodically discussing settlement to no avail. (Doc. 32 at 4; Doc. 35 at 2) During this time, it appears they have not diligently sought to complete discovery and the deadline for doing so is fast approaching. (Doc. 24) Consequently, they'd like to reconsider settlement without having to conduct discovery and seek to extend the nonexpert discovery period by four months and all remaining dates by about two months. (Doc. 35 at 2-3) Unfortunately, delayed or ongoing settlement discussions do not constitute good cause to amend the case schedule. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992).
Though the Court applauds the parties' willingness to compromise, nothing in the stipulation1 supports good cause to amend the case schedule and, therefore, the stipulation is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. In addition, the proposed amended schedule, is unworkable for the Court. Judge Ishii only hears dispositive motions on Mondays at 10:30, he requires seven weeks between the hearing on the dispositive motions and the pretrial conference and the trial must be at least eight weeks after the pretrial conference.
Source: Leagle
