The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry v. California State Grange et al.

Filing 155

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 8/15/17 ORDERING that the Defendants' ex parte application to strike plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment be, and is the same hereby is DENIED. the Final Pretrial Conference is RESET to 11/6/17 at 01:30 PM; and the Trial is RESET to 1/3/18 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 13 NATIONAL GRANGE and CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE, Civ. No. 2:16-0201 WBS DB ORDER RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE Plaintiffs, 14 15 16 17 18 v. CALIFORNIA GUILD, formerly doing business as “California State Grange,” and ROBERT MCFARLAND, Defendants. 19 ----oo0oo---- 20 21 In December 2016, the court issued a scheduling order 22 stating that “[a]ll motions, except motions for continuances, 23 temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, 24 shall be filed on or before June 28, 2017.” 25 at 3 (Docket No. 111).) 26 California State Grange filed a cross-motion for summary judgment 27 on July 24, 2017. 28 defendants California Guild and Robert McFarland’s ex parte (Dec. 13, 2016 Order Plaintiffs National Grange and (Docket No. 142.) 1 Before the court is 1 Application to strike plaintiffs’ cross-motion as untimely. 2 (Docket No. 148.) 3 4 Plaintiffs set forth two arguments for the position that their cross-motion is not untimely. 5 First, they argue that the court’s April 4, 2017 order- 6 -which granted “plaintiffs’ ex parte application to stay 7 discovery until the resolution of their motion to disqualify the 8 Ellis Law Group”--impliedly extended the deadline for filing 9 motions. (See Pls.’ Opp’n at 1-2, 4 (Docket No. 152).) The 10 April 4 order mentions nothing about the deadline for filing 11 motions or tolling any dates set forth in the December 2016 12 scheduling order. 13 motions, as plaintiffs contend. It did not extend the deadline for filing 14 Second, plaintiffs argue that Local Rule 230(e)--which 15 provides that “[a]ny counter-motion . . . shall be . . . filed . 16 . . on the date prescribed for the filing of opposition [to the 17 underlying motion]”--allowed them to file their cross-motion on 18 the date their opposition to defendants’ motion for summary 19 judgment was due--July 24, 2017. 20 language of [Local Rule 230(e)] nor any authority suggests that 21 [Local Rule 230(e)] supersedes the court’s scheduling order 22 deadlines. 23 which no such deadlines are implicated.” 24 USA, Inc., Civ. No. S-04-2272 DFL DAD, 2007 WL 926808, at *2 25 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2007), rev’d on other grounds in 299 F. App’x 26 728 (9th Cir. 2008). 27 argument is also without merit. 28 (See id. at 2-4.) “Neither the [Local Rule 230(e)] is directed to the situation in Martinez v. Home Depot Thus, plaintiffs’ Local Rule 230(e) Nevertheless, because plaintiffs could have reasonably 2 1 misread the rule to allow them to file their cross-motion on the 2 date their opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment 3 was due, the court finds that good cause exists to accept 4 plaintiffs’ late cross-motion. 5 “primarily considers the diligence of the party [that filed the 6 late motion].” 7 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 specifically address situations in which the date on which a 9 cross-motion may be filed under its terms conflicts with the 10 “Good cause” under Rule 16(b) Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d Local Rule 230(e) does not on its face court’s scheduling order deadlines. 11 In order to have plaintiff’s motion heard before the 12 Final Pretrial Conference, however, the court must postpone the 13 Final Pretrial Conference and trial from their presently 14 scheduled dates. 15 schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of 16 the party seeking the extension.” 17 Sur. Corp., No. 1:11-CV-00845 SKO, 2013 WL 5276132, at *13 (E.D. 18 Cal. Sept. 17, 2013) (internal citation omitted). 19 “The district court may modify the pretrial Fresno Rock Taco, LLC v. Nat’l IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ ex parte 20 Application to strike plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary 21 judgment be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Pretrial 23 Conference in this case be continued to November 6, 2017 at 1:30 24 p.m., and the trial in this case be continued to January 3, 2018 25 at 9:00 a.m. 26 Dated: August 15, 2017 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?