Cavanaugh et al v. County of San Diego et al, No. 3:2018cv02557 - Document 62 (S.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER Granting In Part and Denying In Part 58 Defendants' Ex Parte Motion to Continue or Vacate All Remaining Pretrial Motion Deadlines and Mandatory Settlement Conference While Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is Pending. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/8/2021 10:30 AM before Judge Roger T. Benitez. Mandatory Settlement Conference set for 1/20/2021 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez on 10/5/2020. (mme)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cavanaugh et al v. County of San Diego et al Doc. 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 SHANE CAVANAUGH; and THE ESTATE OF RICHARD BOULANGER, 13 14 15 Case No.: 18cv2557-BEN-LL ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE OR VACATE ALL REMAINING PRETRIAL MOTION DEADLINES AND MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WHILE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS IS PENDING Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 [ECF No. 58] 20 21 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ ex parte motion requesting that the Court 22 continue for sixty to ninety days all remaining pretrial dates and deadlines, or alternatively, 23 vacate all remaining dates and deadlines until the Court issues its ruling on the pending 24 motion to dismiss.1 ECF No. 58 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Plaintiffs filed an opposition. ECF 25 26 27 28 1 The events that Defendants request to continue or vacate include the following: filing of pretrial motions, Mandatory Settlement Conference, pretrial disclosures, Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) meet and confer, joint statement regarding willingness to participate in another 1 18cv2557-BEN-LL Dockets.Justia.com 1 No. 60 (“Opposition” or “Oppo.”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 2 IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ ex parte motion. 3 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 4 On November 8, 2018, Defendants removed this action from state court. ECF No. 1. 5 On October 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed its First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 31. 6 On August 24, 2020, the district judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ 7 motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and denied as moot Defendants’ 8 motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, or Strike Portions Thereof. ECF 9 No. 54. 10 11 12 13 14 15 On August 31, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 55. On September 14, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ SAC. ECF No. 56. On September 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss the SAC. ECF No. 59. 16 On September 28, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Motion. ECF No. 58. 17 The remaining dates and deadlines in this action are as follows: pretrial motions 18 filing deadline of October 9, 2020; confidential Mandatory Settlement Conference 19 (“MSC”) statements due November 10, 2020; MSC on November 18, 2020; pretrial 20 disclosures deadline of November 30, 2020; Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) meet and confer 21 deadline of December 7, 2020; joint statement regarding willingness to participate in 22 another settlement conference by December 8, 2020; Plaintiffs to provide Defendants with 23 proposed pretrial order by December 14, 2020; lodgment of proposed Final Pretrial 24 25 26 27 28 settlement conference, Plaintiffs to provide Defendants with proposed pretrial order, lodgment of proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, and final Pretrial Conference. ECF No. 58 at 3–4. 2 18cv2557-BEN-LL 1 Conference Order by December 21, 2020; and final Pretrial Conference on January 11, 2 2021. ECF Nos. 23, 51. 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Once a Rule 162 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified 5 only “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also 6 ECF No. 23 at 7 (stating that dates and times will not be modified except for good cause 7 shown). The Rule 16 good cause standard focuses on the “reasonable diligence” of the 8 moving party. Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation 9 omitted). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 10 modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is 11 upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth 12 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 A. 15 Defendants argue that under the current schedule, the parties would be forced to 16 unnecessarily litigate claims in a summary judgment motion that may be resolved by the 17 pending motion to dismiss. Mot. at 3. They state that their motion to dismiss the SAC is 18 scheduled to be heard on October 20, 2020, so it will not be ruled on before the October 9, 19 2020 deadline to file pretrial motions. Id. Defendants contend that good cause exists to 20 grant their request because it would be a waste of resources for the parties and the Court to 21 complete pretrial work and go forward with the MSC while their motion to dismiss is still 22 pending. Id. at 4. They argue that the pretrial deadlines should be continued to (1) allow 23 the Court sufficient time to issue its ruling on the motion to dismiss, (2) permit Defendants 24 to file their answer to any remaining claims, and (3) allow Defendants to file, if necessary, 25 their motion for summary judgment. Id. at 3. 26 Parties’ Positions 27 2 28 Citations of rules in this order refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise stated. 3 18cv2557-BEN-LL 1 Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that Defendants are seeking merely to further 2 delay this action. Oppo. at 3, 6. Plaintiffs contend the current motion to dismiss is identical 3 to Defendants’ first motion to dismiss, which Plaintiffs claim the Court denied when it 4 granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the first amended complaint and stated, “In this 5 case, the Court has considered and incorporated the arguments advanced in support of the 6 Defendants’ motion to dismiss/strike in its analysis of the motion to amend.” Id. at 2; ECF 7 No. 54 at 12. Plaintiffs also argue that (1) they have allowed Defendants numerous 8 extensions in this case; (2) that Defendants have been aware of the pretrial motions 9 deadline for over a year; (3) Defendants fail to cite a specific and necessary reason to extend 10 deadlines; and (4) moving the trial date would be unfair and prejudicial to Plaintiffs who 11 have been waiting for trial for years. Oppo. at 3–7. 12 B. 13 The Court finds that extending the remaining dates and deadlines will promote 14 judicial efficiency and save the parties’ resources. Through no fault of the parties, the 15 motion to dismiss the SAC will not be ruled on prior to the pretrial motions filing deadline. 16 The Court finds an extension of the pretrial motions filing deadline will allow the Court 17 time to rule on the motion to dismiss and clarify which causes of action remain before 18 motions for summary judgment are due and before final trial preparation occurs in the 19 remaining deadlines. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ claim that the district judge 20 already denied an identical motion to dismiss filed by Defendants. The district judge wrote 21 the following: 22 23 24 25 Good Cause In this case, the Court has considered and incorporated the arguments advanced in support of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss/strike in its analysis of the motion to amend. Because the Court grants in part Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or to strike is DENIED as moot. 26 ECF No. 54 at 12. Because the previous and almost identical motion to dismiss was denied 27 as moot, the Court is not convinced that the first motion to dismiss was denied on the 28 merits. 4 18cv2557-BEN-LL 1 The Court finds that Defendants have been reasonably diligent regarding the 2 remaining dates and deadlines. Although the Court has previously granted several 3 extensions in this case, all but one of the deadlines at issue have never been continued. See 4 ECF No. 23. Only the pretrial motions filing deadline was continued twice previously for 5 good cause. See ECF Nos. 23, 41, 53. Defense counsel attests that she reached out to 6 Plaintiffs’ counsel beginning August 26, 2020—two days after the district judge granted in 7 part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the FAC—to discuss the upcoming 8 deadlines and case scheduling. ECF No. 58-1, Declaration of Sylvia S. Aceves. ¶¶ 3–9. 9 Defense counsel learned in September that Plaintiffs would oppose a motion to continue 10 dates. Id. Defendants filed the instant Motion two weeks after filing their motion to dismiss 11 the SAC. See ECF Nos. 56, 58. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants acted reasonably 12 diligently and without long delays to file the instant Motion as soon as they realized that 13 their motion to dismiss the SAC would not be ruled on before the pretrial motions filing 14 deadline. 15 Because the Court finds that Defendants acted reasonably diligently regarding the 16 remaining dates and deadlines and that extending them will promote judicial efficiency and 17 save the parties’ resources, the Court finds good cause exists to extend the remaining 18 pretrial dates and deadlines. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 609. 19 Nevertheless, the Court is mindful that this action was originally removed to federal court 20 almost two years ago. See ECF No. 1. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to amend 21 the scheduling order, but for a shorter amount of time than requested. Barring any other 22 extraordinary circumstances, if the new deadline arrives and the motion to dismiss has still 23 not been ruled on, this Court will not grant a further continuance to the pretrial motions 24 filing deadline. Given the age of this action, additional future extensions will begin to tip 25 the scale from efficiency and economy to prejudice to Plaintiffs. 26 IV. 27 28 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ ex parte motion to amend the scheduling order as follows: 5 18cv2557-BEN-LL 1 OLD DATE NEW DATE 2 Pretrial Motions Filing Deadline October 9, 2020 November 9, 2020 3 Confidential MSC Statements Due November 10, 2020 January 12, 2021 4 MSC 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 November 18, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Joint Statement Regarding Willingness to December 8, 2020 Participate in Another Settlement Conference Pretrial Disclosure Deadline November 30, 2020 Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) Meet and Confer Deadline Plaintiffs to Provide Defense with Proposed Pretrial Order Lodgment of Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order Final Pretrial Conference January 20, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. February 1, 2021 February 8, 2021 December 7, 2020 February 16, 2021 December 14, 2020 February 22, 2021 December 21, 2020 March 1, 2021 January 11, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. March 8, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. 14 15 16 17 All other requirements remain as previously set. See ECF No. 23. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 5, 2020 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 18cv2557-BEN-LL
]]>
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.
