Madsen v. Risenhoover et al

Filing 112

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 109 Motion for Extension of Time to File (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 7 RICK MADSEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) SUE E. RISENHOOVER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ ) No. C 09-5457 SBA (pr) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS' REPLY 8 Defendants' motion for summary judgment by twenty-seven days, to September 20, 2012, and also 11 For the Northern District of California Before the Court is Defendants' request to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to oppose 10 United States District Court 9 extend the deadline for Defendants to reply in support of the motion for summary judgment until 12 October 12, 2012. Defendants' attorney, Deputy Attorney General Jillian R. Weader, has 13 submitted a declaration stating that she is requesting this extension because she will be "on leave 14 from the office and unavailable from August 31, 2012, until September 20, 2012." (Weader Decl. 15 ΒΆ 7.) Attorney Weader gives no further reason for her request for this extension. 16 Both parties in the present case have been granted multiple extensions of time to file briefs 17 in this action. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was filed on February 10, 2012. Prior to 18 filing that motion, Defendants received two extensions of time to file their dispositive motion. 19 (Docket nos. 60, 70.) Plaintiff's opposition is due on August 24, 2012. Plaintiff has previously 20 been granted two extensions of time to file his opposition. (Docket nos. 98, 108.) The Court also 21 22 23 24 provided Plaintiff with a Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), notice (which repeats the Rand summary judgment notice provided in the Court's March 31, 2011 Order of Service at pages 10-11) as required by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Woods v. Carey, No. 09-15548, slip op. 7871, 7874 (9th Cir. July 6, 2012). (Docket no. 104.) Defendants' reply to 25 the opposition is due on September 7, 2012. In its July 20, 2012 Order Granting in Part and 26 27 28 Denying in Part Plaintiff's Request for a Second Extension of Time to File a Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court also specified: "No further extensions of time will be granted in this case absent exigent circumstances." (July 20, 2012 Order at 2 (emphasis in original).) 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(3)(A), district courts must enter a 2 scheduling order to establish deadlines to, among other things, "file motions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 16(b)(3)(A). Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is entered, the schedule "may be modified only for 4 good cause and with the judge's consent." Id. 16(b)(4). "A scheduling order 'is not a frivolous 5 piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.'" 6 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Rule 16 provides that deadlines established in a case management order may "be modified only for good cause[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "Good cause" exists when a deadline "cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citation omitted). Thus, "Rule 16(b)'s 'good cause' standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Id.; see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 12 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Where the moving party has not been diligent, the inquiry ends and the 13 14 15 16 17 motion should be denied. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Here, Defendants have failed to establish good cause for their request to modify the current briefing schedule. As mentioned above, the parties have been granted multiple extensions of time 18 to file briefs in this matter. Furthermore, Defendants' motion for summary judgment has been 19 pending for almost six months. Finally, Attorney Weader fails to identify any existing exigent 20 circumstances warranting an extension of time. In fact, she gives no reason other than the fact that 21 she will be "on leave" prior to the deadline for the reply; therefore, without more, the Court finds a 22 lack of diligence by the moving party. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is DENIED. The parties 23 shall abide by the briefing schedule outlined in the Court's July 20, 2012 Order. No further 24 extensions of time will be granted in this case absent exigent circumstances. 25 This Order terminates Docket no. 109. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 DATED: _8/1/12 28 G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Madsen5457.denyEOT-DEFreply.frm _______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 2 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 RICK MADSEN, 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. SUE E. RISENHOOVER et al, Defendant. 12 13 Case Number: CV09-05457 SBA / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on August 3, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 18 19 22 Rick Madsen E10400 Pelican Bay State Prison P.O. Box 7500 5905 Lake Earl Drive Crescent City, CA 95531 23 Dated: August 3, 2012 20 21 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk 24 25 26 27 28 G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Madsen5457.denyEOT-DEFreply.frm 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?