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)

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