Cornejo et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 24

ORDER GRANTING 22 Stipulation to Amend the Case Schedule, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/28/2016. Non-Expert and Expert discovery completed by 6/13/2016. Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filed by 6/20/2016; Hearing by 7/18/2016. Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filed by 7/15/2016; Hearing by 8/12/2016. Pretrial Conference CONTINUED to 8/29/2016 at 08:30 AM in Bakersfield at 510 19th Street (JLT) before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANK CORNEJO, et al.

12
13

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00993-JLT

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING THE STIPULATION
TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE

v.
(Doc. 22)

14

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Defendants removed this matter to this Court on June 29, 2015. (Doc. 1) They then

18

answered the complaint on September 1, 2015. (Doc. 6) Nearly two months later, Defendants

19

moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court granted in part. (Docs. 11, 16) Plaintiffs

20

filed their first amended complaint several weeks later and the defendants answered, several weeks

21

after that. (Docs. 17, 18)

22

In the meanwhile, on October 28, 2015, the Court held a scheduling conference and issued

23

the case schedule, which detailed the deadlines by which the parties would complete case activities.

24

(Doc. 10) Despite this, counsel have failed to conduct discovery, choosing instead to expend their

25

efforts toward resolving the matter. (Doc. 22 at 3) While these efforts have resolved one claim and

26

agreed to strike certain allegations made in the complaint, they did not resolve the balance of the

27

matter despite the passage of nearly four months since plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.

28

Now the parties find themselves in the unenviable situation in which they have completely exhausted

29
30

1

1

their non-expert discovery time and are unprepared to move forward.

2

I.

Discussion and Analysis

3

Scheduling orders are “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly

4

disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610 (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case

5

Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Maine 1985)). Districts courts must enter scheduling orders in

6

actions to “limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file

7

motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). In addition, scheduling orders may “modify the timing of

8

disclosures” and “modify the extent of discovery.” Id. Once entered by the Court, a scheduling order

9

“controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d).

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

The parties must show good cause to modify the scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
The Ninth Circuit explained:
Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party
seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it
cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.
Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no
reason for a grant of relief. Although the existence of a degree of prejudice to the
party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the
focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for modification. If that party
was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

17

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), emphasis added.

18

Therefore, parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to the schedule throughout the course of the

19

litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). A party requesting

20

modification of a scheduling order may be required to show:

21
22
23
24
25
26

(1) that she was diligent in assisting the Court in creating a workable Rule 16 order,
(2) that her noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur,
notwithstanding her efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which
could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16
scheduling conference, and (3) that she was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule
16 order, once it become apparent that she could not comply with the order.
Id. at 608 (internal citations omitted).
Despite these standards, counsel provide no explanation why they chose to disregard the case

27

schedule and to ignore their obligations to conduct discovery for their clients. Indeed, settlement

28

efforts were not an unforeseen circumstance and they should have alerted the Court at the scheduling

29
30

2

1

conference of the need for the schedule to accommodate these discussions. Alternatively, the parties

2

could have filed a stipulation to stay the case while they engaged in settlement discussions. Finally,

3

while the Court applauds the parties’ efforts to resolve the matter amicably, counsel don’t explain

4

why it took them almost four months to realize they could not resolve the entire case or why they

5

believed they were on firm footing ignoring the case schedule. Notably, the scheduling order

6

explicitly warned them against this conduct. It reads,

7

The foregoing order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the
agenda most suitable to dispose of this case. The trial date reserved is specifically
reserved for this case. If the parties determine at any time that the schedule outlined in
this order cannot be met, counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that
fact so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by subsequent status
conference.

8
9
10

13

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified
absent a showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by
stipulation. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be
considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where
appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief
requested.

14

(Doc. 10 at 6) Emphasis in the original. The order continues, “Failure to comply with this order may

15

result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. Thus, the stipulation fails to provide good cause to amend

16

the case schedule. On the other hand, the length of time needed for the pleadings to settle after the

17

Court issued the case schedule, does warrant additional discovery time.

11
12

18

ORDER

19

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

20

1.

The stipulation to amend the case schedule is GRANTED;

21

2.

The parties SHALL complete all discovery, non-expert and expert, no later than

22

June 13, 2016;

23
24

3.

The parties SHALL file non-dispositive motions no later than June 20, 2016. Such

motions will be heard no later than July 18, 2016;

25

4.

The parties SHALL file dispositive motions no later than July 15, 2016. Such

26

motions will be heard no later than August 12, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.;

27

///

28

///

29
30

3

1

5.

The pretrial conference is CONTINUED to August 29, 2016, at 8:30 a.m.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 28, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

4