Operating Engineers Pension Trust Fund et al v. Terrasearch et al
Filing
111
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 106 Ex Parte Application (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
OAKLAND DIVISION
9
10 OPERATING ENGINEERS’ PENSION
TRUST FUND; F.G. CROSTHWAITE and
11 RUSSELL E. BURNS, as Trustees,
Plaintiffs,
12
13
Case No: C 10-04964 SBA
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF
DEADLINES
vs.
Dkt. 106
14 TERRASEARCH, a California Corporation, 3
MAK, LLC, a California Limited Liability
15 Company, TERRASEARCH GULF, a
California partnership, SIMON MAKDESSI,
16 as an individual, and ISSAM MAKDISSY, as
an individual, and DOES 1-20,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
The parties are presently before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to
21
Extend Law and Motion Cut-Off Deadlines. Dkt. 106. Having read and considered the
22
papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby
23
DENIES the application for the reasons set forth below.
24
On February 27, 2012, the Court issued its Order for Pretrial Preparation, which,
25
inter alia, set March 26, 2013, as the last day to hear motions. See Order for Pretrial
26
Preparation at 1-2, Dkt. 74. Almost a year later on February 6, 2013, the parties submitted
27
a stipulated request to modify the Court’s pretrial schedule by continuing the trial date and
28
extending all pretrial deadlines, including the law and motion cut-off date. Dkt. 96. On
1
February 8, 2013, the Court denied the request, finding that the parties have not been
2
diligent in meeting the deadlines set in the Court’s Order for Pretrial Preparation. See
3
Order Denying Request to Modify Trial Date at 2, Dkt. 96.
4
On March 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 99. Given
5
that the law and motion cut off is March 26, 2013, coupled with the 35-day notice period
6
required for motions, Civ. L.R. 7-2(a), Plaintiffs’ motion cannot be heard unless the Court
7
modifies its Order for Pretrial Preparation. To that end, Plaintiffs have accompanied their
8
summary judgment motion with an ex parte application to extend the law and motion cut-
9
off date. Dkt. 106. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s ex parte request. Dkt. 110.
10
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 provides that deadlines established in a case
11
management order may “be modified only for good cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
12
“Good cause” exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the
13
party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609
14
(9th Cir. 1992). Thus, “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the
15
diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id.; see also Coleman v.
16
Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). “If the party seeking the
17
modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not
18
be granted.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting
19
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).
20
Plaintiff’s current ex parte application to extend the law and motion cut-off date is,
21
in essence, a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s February 8th Order. However,
22
before filing a motion for reconsideration, the movant must first seek leave to do so under
23
Civil Local Rule 7-9. Plaintiffs have not complied with this requirement and the instant
24
motion otherwise fails to make the requisite showing under Local Rule 7-9. The Court may
25
summarily deny motions that are not filed in compliance with the Court’s local rules. See
26
Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial
27
of a motion as the result of a failure to comply with local rules is well within a district
28
court’s discretion.”).
-2-
1
Setting aside Civil Local Rule 7-9 and the Court’s prior ruling, Plaintiffs have not
2
otherwise made any showing of good cause in their ex parte application. Instead, Plaintiffs
3
merely state that Defendants refused to stipulate to their requested extension. Pls.’ Ex Parte
4
Application at 1. Given Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate good cause, as required by Rule
5
16, their request to extend the law and motion cut off is not well taken. Accordingly,
6
7
8
9
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Extend Law
and Motion Cut-Off Deadlines is DENIED. This Order terminates Docket 99, 106 and 107.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2013
________________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
10
11
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?