McClellan et al v. SFN Group, Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER re 34 Stipulation, filed by SFN Professional Services, LLC, SFN Group, Inc., Laura Loveless, Kimberly McClellan. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 12/5/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2011)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6 KIMBERLY MCCLELLAN and LAURA

LOVELESS, individually and on behalf of all
7 others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

vs.

Case No: C 10-5972 SBA
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT
SCHEDULING ORDER
Dkt. 32

10 SFN GROUP, INC., SFN PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES, LLC, and SPHERION
ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES, LLC, all doing
12 business as SPHERION, and SPHERION, a
business form unknown, and DOES 1 through
13 100, inclusive,
11

14

Defendants.

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

The parties are presently before the Court on the parties’ stipulated request to
modify the Court’s case management scheduling order. Specifically, they request to
(1) continue the deadline to complete mediation from January 15, 2012 to April 2, 2012,
and (2) continue the hearing date on Plaintiffs’ class certification motion from March 27,
2012 to September 25, 2012. Dkt. 34. In their stipulation, the parties state that due to the
“recent[]” purchase of SFN Group “by another company,” SFN Group’s “corporate and
reporting structure … is in the process of being determined in light of this purchase, and
will be resolved by early 2012.” Id.
The procedure for submitting a stipulation to modify a court-ordered deadline is
governed by Civil Local Rule 6-2, which provides:
6-2. Stipulated Request for Order Changing Time
(a) Form and Content. The parties may file a stipulation,
conforming to Civil L.R. 7-12, requesting an order changing
time that would affect the date of an event or deadline already
fixed by Court order, or that would accelerate or extend time

frames set in the Local Rules or in the Federal Rules. The
stipulated request must be accompanied by a declaration that:
(1) Sets forth with particularity, the reasons for the
requested enlargement or shortening of time;
(2) Discloses all previous time modifications in the case,
whether by stipulation or Court order; and
(3) Describes the effect the requested time modification
would have on the schedule for the case.
(b) Action by the Court. After receiving a stipulated request
under this Rule, the Judge may grant, deny or modify the
requested time change.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Civ. L.R. 6-2. A request to modify a deadline set in a case management scheduling order

9

must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause”

10

exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking

11

the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

12

Where the moving party has not been diligent, the inquiry ends and the motion should be

13

denied. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.2002); Johnson, 975

14

F.2d at 609.

15

In the instant case, there is no declaration accompanying the stipulation, as required

16

by Civil Local Rule 6-2(a). Nor is the information that should have been presented in such

17

declaration contained in the stipulation. First, the stipulation fails to recite the specific

18

reasons that the proposed extensions are necessary. In particular, the parties fail to explain

19

how the change in “reporting structure” as to one of the Defendants necessarily precludes

20

either the mediation or class certification motion from proceeding next year as scheduled.

21

Second, the stipulation fails to disclose that the Court previously granted the parties’

22

request to modify the pretrial scheduling order and extended the mediation deadline by four

23

months and continued the motion hearing by approximately two months. Dkt. 33. Finally,

24

the parties neglect to articulate the effect of the proposed stipulation on the schedule for this

25

case. The parties’ failure to comply with Local Rule 6-2, standing alone, justifies denial of

26

the instant request. See Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. Cal., Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 582 (9th Cir.

27

2010) (upholding district court’s denial of motion to tax costs which was not in compliance

28

with the court’s local rules). That notwithstanding, the Court finds that the parties have
-2-

1

failed to demonstrate good cause for their request. Plaintiffs commenced this case over a

2

year ago on November 24, 2010. Since that time, the parties have had ample opportunity to

3

prepare for mediation and class certification. As such, the Court finds that the parties’

4

allege need for additional time is due to their lack of diligence. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at

5

609 (holding that if the district court finds that the party seeking a time modification “was

6

not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). Accordingly,

7
8
9
10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties’ stipulation to modify the Court’s
case management scheduling order is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2011

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-