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)

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-