Monster Cable Products, Inc. v. Vizio, Inc.

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING 40 Stipulation filed by Vizio, Inc., Monster Cable Products, Inc.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 11/28/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 OAKLAND DIVISION 8 MONSTER CABLE PRODUCTS, INC., a Case No: C 10-5228 SBA 9 California corporation, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 VIZIO, INC., a Delaware corporation, and ORDER DENYING STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND MEDIATION DEADLINE and ORDER OF REFERENCE Dkt. 40 DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 The parties have submitted a third stipulation to extend deadline for mediation from 17 November 23, 2011 to February 21, 2012 “due to the parties being engaged in settlement 18 negotiations.” Dkt. 40 at 1. To accommodate their request, the parties further request that 19 the Court continue the trial date and all pretrial deadlines by ninety days. Id. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 provides that deadlines established in a case 21 management order may “be modified only for good cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good 22 cause” exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 23 seeking the extension.” See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 24 Cir. 1992). Thus, “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the 25 party seeking the amendment.” Id.; see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 26 (9th Cir. 2000). Where the moving party has not been diligent, the inquiry ends and the 27 motion should be denied. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); 28 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 1 Here, the record shows that the parties have twice stipulated to continue the mediation 2 deadline, which was originally scheduled for August 5, 2011. Dkt. 38, 39. Each time, the 3 parties cited their ongoing settlement negotiations as a basis for the continuance. While the 4 Court certainly supports the parties’ efforts to resolve the case without further litigation, the 5 Court is not persuaded that the parties have been sufficiently diligent such that a ninety day 6 extension of the trial date and all pretrial dates and deadlines, including the deadline for 7 completing mediation, is warranted. However, to facilitate the parties’ settlement discussions, 8 the Court refers the action to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for a mandatory settlement 9 conference to take place by no later than January 6, 2012. Accordingly, 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties’ stipulation to extend the mediation 11 deadline and modify the trial date and pretrial schedule is DENIED. This matter is referred 12 to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for a mandatory settlement conference to take place by 13 no later than January 6, 2012. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: November 28, 2011 _______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?