Soto, et al v. Greyhound Lines, et al, No. 2:2006cv01612 - Document 184 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr ORDERING dft's Motion for Leave to Amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order 175 is DENIED. (Carlos, K)

Download PDF

Soto, et al v. Greyhound Lines, et al Doc. 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA SOTO, 12 13 14 No. 2:06-cv-01612-MCE-DAD (Consolidated cases) Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GREYHOUND LINES, INC. et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ----oo0oo---- 17 18 Through this action and consolidated cases, Plaintiffs seek 19 redress for injuries sustained during an automobile accident on 20 July 1, 2005. 21 Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car of Oregon (“Defendant”) 22 requesting leave to modify the PreTrial Scheduling Order (“PTSO”) 23 by extending the time period for filing of dispositive motions.1 24 All dispositive motions were required by said PTSO to be filed by 25 May 15, 2009. Presently before this Court is a Motion by 26 27 28 1 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefing. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 As per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the Court is 2 normally required to enter a pretrial scheduling order within 120 3 days of the filing of the complaint. 4 scheduling order “controls the subsequent course of the action” 5 unless modified by the Court. 6 entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified upon 7 a showing of “good cause,” but orders “following a final pretrial 8 conference shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice.” 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). The Orders Here, the final pretrial conference will 10 not occur until May 6, 2010 (See Docket No. 172). 11 “good cause” standard applies when ruling on Defendant’s Motion. 12 Accordingly, a Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the 13 diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth 14 Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 15 court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably 16 be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment); 18 Id. 19 diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. 20 Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party 21 opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny 22 a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's 23 reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not 24 diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// The district Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of 2 Id. 1 Defendant’s Motion falls short of the sufficient “good 2 cause” necessary to warrant modifying the PTSO. 3 of the “good cause” inquiry is diligence on the part of the 4 Defendant, and here Defendant’s actions exist in near 5 contradiction to such a call. 6 long before Defendant’s dispositive motion deadline. 7 was accorded fair and ample opportunity to raise the Graves 8 Amendment as a defense against liability. 9 bend its own rules simply because Defendant’s counsel failed to 10 The touchstone The Graves Amendment was enacted Defendant The Court will not now timely discover this point of law. 11 It is unpersuasive that Defendant hired new counsel 12 following the dispositive motion deadline. By agreeing to 13 represent Defendant, counsel stepped into the shoes of its 14 predecessor taking on all pre-existing responsibilities and 15 mandates. 16 new attorneys becomes the basis upon which the Court’s Orders may 17 be modified. 18 disgruntled parties seeking to side-step the deadlines of the 19 Court by hiring replacement counsel. 20 clear direction and control of the action. 21 do so in this case. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// The Court will not institute a rule in which hiring To do so would open the floodgates to a world of 3 The PTSO exists to provide It will continue to 1 2 3 4 Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion requesting leave to modify the PTSO (Docket No. 175) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 2, 2010 5 6 7 _____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.