Rodriguez v. RCO Reforesting, Inc. et al.

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 6/19/2017 DENYING 26 Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

JESUS SILVA RODRIGUEZ and
RIGOBERTO ZEPEDA LOA,

16
17

ORDER RE: MOTION TO AMEND THE
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiffs,

14
15

CIV. NO. 2:16-2523 WBS CMK

v.
RCO REFORESTING, INC. and
ROBERTO OCHOA,
Defendants.

18
19

----oo0oo----

20
21

Plaintiffs move to amend the court’s February 17, 2017,

22

Pretrial Scheduling Order to extend discovery, dispositive

23

motion, and trial dates by seven months.

24

scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with

25

the judge’s consent.”

26

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992).

27
28

(See Docket No. 26.)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see Johnson v.

Discovery closes August 31, 2017, and plaintiffs argue
all opt-in plaintiffs that fall within their proposed
1

A

1

conditionally certified class will not be identified by that

2

time.

3

conditionally certify this action as an FLSA collective action,

4

the court finds presently there is not good cause to amend the

5

Scheduling Order.

However, because the court denied plaintiffs’ Motion to

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to

6
7

amend the pretrial scheduling order (Docket No. 26) be, and the

8

same hereby is, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

9

Dated:

June 19, 2017

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2