Raig Chaquico v. David Freiberg et al

Filing 70

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting in part and denying in part 68 Administrative Motion to Continue Deadlines. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CRAIG CHAQUICO, Plaintiff, 8 9 v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINES Re: Dkt. No. 68 10 DAVID FREIBERG, et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-02423-MEJ Defendants. 12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Craig Chaquico moves to continue the June 1, 2018 deadline to amend the 15 pleadings and the June 6, 2018 deadline to file a reply to his Motion to Strike. Mot., Dkt. No. 68; 16 see CMO, Dkt. No. 61; Order Granting Stip., Dkt. No. 66. Defendants oppose the Motion insofar 17 as it seeks to extend the deadline to amend the pleadings. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 69. For the reasons set 18 forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion. DISCUSSION 19 20 Plaintiff proposes a deadline of June 26, 2018 for both filings. Mot. at 3. Plaintiff argues 21 these continuances are necessary because, as of May 31, 2018, Plaintiff has obtained new counsel. 22 Mot. at 1; id. at ECF pp.4-7 (Armstrong Decl.). Defendants do not oppose extending the reply 23 deadline, but “strenuously” oppose continuing the deadline to amend pleadings. Opp’n at 2-5; 24 Mot. at 1; Armstrong Decl. ¶¶ 2-3 & Ex. 1 (email from Defendants’ counsel to Plaintiff’s new 25 counsel, Tom Armstrong). 26 27 28 As Defendants do not oppose a continuance of the reply deadline, the Court GRANTS this request. Plaintiff shall file his reply no later than June 26, 2018. However, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to continue the deadline to amend the 1 pleadings. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified 2 only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” See Civ. L.R. 16-2(d). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good 3 cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. 4 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Based on the present record, the fact that Plaintiff has elected to obtain new counsel does 5 6 not constitute good cause for modifying the amended pleadings deadline. The Court issued the 7 Case Management Order on April 11, 2018 and set the June 1, 2018 deadline based on the 8 Plaintiff’s proposal. CMC Stmt. at 6, Dkt. No. 55. As Plaintiff “is presumed to have voluntarily 9 chosen the lawyer as his representative and agent, he ordinarily cannot later avoid accountability for . . . omissions of his counsel.” Community Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Cir. 2002), as amended on denial of reh’g and reh’g en banc (Apr. 24, 2002); see Pioneer Inv. 12 Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 396 (1993) (“[C]lients must be held 13 accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys.”); Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 14 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule, parties are bound by the actions of their 15 lawyers[.]”. Despite having ample time to amend the pleadings, Plaintiff has not attempted to do 16 so. That Plaintiff may now want to do so is not grounds to grant Plaintiff’s eleventh hour request 17 to modify the scheduling order. Moreover, as of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of counsel. 18 19 Plaintiff’s ostensible former counsel signed and filed the Motion and remains Plaintiff’s counsel of 20 record. Mot. at 3; see Docket. It is unclear when Plaintiff’s new counsel will be able to substitute 21 in. Plaintiff’s new counsel, Tom Armstrong, declares “[w]e are obtaining local counsel and will 22 be filing a stipulation for substitution thereafter.”1 Armstrong Decl. ¶ 1. There is no indication 23 when this will occur. As it unclear whether Mr. Armstrong will even be counsel of record as of 24 June 26, 2018 and in light of Defendants’ opposition to the extension, the Court DENIES the 25 request to continue the amended pleadings deadline. 26 27 28 1 It appears Mr. Armstrong is located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. See Armstrong Decl. at 5. 2 CONCLUSION 1 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the 3 Motion. The amended pleadings deadline remains June 1, 2018; Plaintiff shall file his reply by 4 June 26, 2018. However, nothing in this Order shall preclude Plaintiff from seeking leave to 5 amend his Second Amended Complaint once his new attorney becomes counsel of record and 6 Plaintiff believes there is good cause under Rule 16 to do so. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Dated: June 1, 2018 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?