Fredricks v. Shell Oil Company et al

Filing 50

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 49 Stipulation (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

OAKLAND DIVISION

8
9 STEVEN M. FREDERICKS,

Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12 EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC d.b.a.

Case No: C 10-05758 SBA
ORDER DENYING THIRD
STIPULATION TO MODIFY
PRETRIAL SCHEDULE
Dkt. 49

SHELL OIL PRODUCTS U.S., et al.,
13

Defendants.
14
15
16

The parties are before the Court on their third stipulated request to continue the trial

17

date and all associated pretrial deadlines. Dkt. 49. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16

18

provides that deadlines established in a case management order may “be modified only for

19

good cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause” exists when a deadline “cannot

20

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v.

21

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Thus,

22

“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking

23

the amendment.” Id.; see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir.

24

2000). “If the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and

25

the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d

26

1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

27

The parties contend that two days prior to the mediation scheduled for March 21,

28

2012, Defendant United/Anco Services, Inc., “determined that it is enrolled in a Rolling

1

Contractors Insurance Program (RCIP) which may provide coverage for the claims alleged

2

by Plaintiff in this action.” Stipulation at 5. As a result, parties vacated the mediation and

3

now request a continuance of all dates in the Court’s pretrial scheduling order for a period

4

of 90 to 120 days in order to allow time for RCIP to respond to United/Anco’s tender. Id.

5

However, the parties have made no showing why this coverage matter could not have been

6

uncovered and addressed earlier in this lawsuit, which was commenced almost two years

7

ago on July 20, 2010. The Court therefore finds that the parties have failed to make the

8

requisite showing of diligence to warrant a third extension of the trial date and associated

9

pretrial deadlines. Accordingly,

10
11
12
13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties’ third stipulation to continue the trial
date and modify the pretrial schedule is DENIED. This Order terminates Docket 49.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 29, 2012

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-