Robinson et al v. KIA Motors America, Inc.

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/17/13 STRIKING 50 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

LISA ROBINSON and KEVIN
ROBINSON,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

No. 10-cv-03187-MCE-GGH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
v.
KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., a
California Corporation, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18
19

On October 24, 2012, Kia Motors America (“Defendant”) filed a Motion for

20

Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 50). Lisa and Kevin Robinson (“Plaintiffs”) responded

21

on November 15, 2012. (ECF No. 53). Relevant to this Order, the Court issued a

22

Pretrial Scheduling Order (“PSO”) on March 9, 2011. (ECF No. 19). In the PSO, the

23

Court ordered Plaintiffs’ dispositive motion to be filed by March 22, 2012 and

24

“Defendant’s opposition and cross-motion to be filed by April 12, 2012.” Id. The Court

25

reminded the parties that the PSO “shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a

26

showing of good cause.” Id. Later, the Court issued an Order Continuing Trial. (ECF

27

No. 46). The Court’s Order Continuing Trial did not amend the dispositive motion

28

timeline.
1

1

Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment over seven months after the

2

dispositive motion deadline in the PSO passed. Accordingly, the Court strikes

3

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

4
5

ANALYSIS

6
7

“A scheduling order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be

8

cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.’ . . . Disregard of the order would

9

undermine the court’s ability to control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of the

10

litigation, and reward the indolent and the cavalier.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

11

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). The Federal Rules of Civil

12

Procedure empower the Court to sanction violations of a scheduling order. 1 Specifically,

13

Rule 16 permits the Court to “issue any just orders . . . if a party or its attorney fails to

14

obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C). “[T]he court has

15

discretion to impose whichever sanction it feels is appropriate under the

16

circumstances[,]” including “striking a pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s

17

notes.

18

The Court ordered Defendant to file all dispositive motions by April 12, 2012, but

19

Defendant flouted the deadline. Defendant failed to file any motions requesting an

20

extension on the dispositive motion’s deadline. Defendant filed the Motion for Summary

21

Judgment seven months after the deadline passed without addressing the delay in any

22

way. (ECF No. 50). Defendant did not provide any reasons for the late filing in its

23

17-page motion. Id. Because Defendant failed to seek the Court’s consent or provide

24

good cause for delay in compliance with Rule 16, the Court will not consider Defendant’s

25

Motion for Summary Judgment.

26

///

27
1

28

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are references to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
unless stated otherwise.

2

1

Additionally, Defendant will not suffer substantial prejudice from the Court’s

2

decision to strike its Motion for Summary Judgment.

3

Defendant already filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication (ECF No. 24), which the

4

Court denied on April 15, 2011.

5
6

CONCLUSION

7
8

Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s PSO, as such Defendant’s Motion for

9

Summary Judgment is STRICKEN and the Court will not consider it. Because the Court

10

did not consider the merits of the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, it is not

11

necessary for the Court to address Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 17, 2013
________________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3