Bakersfield Pipe & Supply, Inc., v. Cornerstone Valve, LLC

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 19 Stipulation to Amend the Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/8/2015. Pleading Amendment Deadline 5/29/2015. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BAKERSFIELD PIPE & SUPPLY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CORNERSTONE VALVE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01445 JLT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION TO
AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. 19)

16
17

On March 27, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation in which they seek to extend the deadline by

18

which amended pleadings and dispositive motions may be filed. (Doc. 19) Counsel for Plaintiff

19

explains that the need to extend the pleading amendment deadline is due to the discovery of possible

20

additional theories of liability but that the viability of these theories cannot be determined until further

21

discovery is completed. (Doc. 18-1 at 2) However, there is no explanation provided regarding why

22

the dispositive motion deadlines need to be amended. Id.

23

Once entered by a court, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court

24

modifies it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly

25

entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth

26

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108

27

F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Maine 1985)). Moreover, good cause must be shown for modification of the

28

scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Indeed, the scheduling order
1

1

reminded counsel of this requirement. (Doc. 17 at 6 [“Stipulations extending the deadlines

2

contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or

3

declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting

4

the relief requested.”] emphasis in the original.)
Because counsel have failed to demonstrate good cause to justify amendment of the case

5
6

schedule related to the dispositive motions (Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609), the stipulation is GRANTED

7

in PART and DENIED in PART as follows:
1.

8
9

Any amendment to any pleading SHALL be filed either via a stipulation or a motion to

amend no later than May 29, 2015;
The request to amend the schedule as it relates to dispositive motions1 is DENIED

10

2.

11

without prejudice.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

April 8, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

If counsel choose to again seek modification of this deadline, they should be aware that the requested modification may
very well mean that a determination on dispositive motions may not be issued before the pretrial conference.

2