Hinds Investments LP et al v. Gregory et al

Filing 114

ORDER denying 109 Ex Parte Application for Continuance of Pretrial Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 3/1/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)

Hinds Investments LP et al v. Gregory et al

Doc. 114

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In one of the oldest cases on the Court's docket, Plaintiffs again request that all pending pretrial deadlines be extended for another eight or so months so that they may have a better handle on damages. (Doc. No. 109.) For the reasons below, Plaintiffs' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HINDS INVESTMENTS LP, AND THOMAS F. HINDS, ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) WILLIAM GREGORY, MELVIN ) SHANGLE, ANTHONY J. BATOR JR., ) THU X. HUNYH, BAN T. HUNYH, AND ) COOPER INDUSTRIES LTD, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) Civil No. 07-CV-848-JLS(WVG)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF PRETRIAL DEADLINES (Doc. No. 109)

request is DENIED. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) requires a showing of good cause to modify a pretrial scheduling order. "Good cause"

exists if a party can prove the schedule "cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Johnson

v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing
07CV848

1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee's notes (1983 amendment)); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). However, if the party seeking modification was not diligent in his

or her pretrial preparations, the inquiry should end there and the measure of relief sought from the Court should not be granted. Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087. The party seeking to continue or extend the deadlines bears the burden of proving good cause. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608. The Court entered the original scheduling order on July 2, 2008. (Doc. No. 57.) Various factors weigh in on the Court's See id.;

denial.1/ First, this case is one of the oldest cases on the Court's docket. Second, the Court has previously allowed five amendments of its scheduling order. Specifically, deadlines were extended on

December 16, 2008; March 9, 2009; July 30, 2009; November 30, 2009; and September 10, 2010. (Doc. Nos. 61, 65, 83, 97, 108.) Third,

there is no explanation why the "Pilot Study" is being conducted now and after the case has been active for nearly four years. In other

words, there is no showing of diligence or excuse for the delay. Finally, Plaintiffs' explain that the Pilot Study will help them better understand their damages, which implies that Plaintiffs have a current understanding of their damages but are on a quest for a perfect understanding, an unattainable goal. Even if a "better"

understanding can be achieved, there is no explanation as to why Plaintiffs have not acquired sufficient understanding of their damages by this point in the litigation. The uncertain utility of

1/

The undersigned has also consulted The Honorable Janis L. Sammartino, before whom the pretrial conference is currently set and whose consent is naturally required to move that conference. Judge Sammartino agrees that the pretrial deadlines should not again be extended.

2

07CV848

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the Pilot Study does not justify another significant delay in this case. Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 1, 2011

Hon. William V. Gallo U.S. Magistrate Judge

3

07CV848