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)

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