Breanna Cuevas v. United Brands Company, Inc. et al

Filing 93

MINUTE ORDER: The Court Grants the Joint Motion to Extend the deadline for filing the class certification motion thirty days to February 11, 2013. In all other respects, the Joint Motion ECF No. 92 is Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on 12/11/2012. (rlu)

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CUEVAS v. UNITED BRANDS CO.
HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

Case No. 11cv0991 BTM(RBB)
Time Spent:

CT. DEPUTY VICKY LEE

Rptr.

Attorneys
Plaintiffs
Alan Mansfield
Patrick Sheehan
Ben Lopatin
PROCEEDINGS:

Defendants
Linda Northrup
Houston Watson
Spencer Skeen

In Chambers

In Court

Telephonic

On December 3, 2012, Plaintiff and Defendant filed a Joint Motion to Extend
Deadlines in Case Management Conference Order Regulating Discovery and Other
Pretrial Proceedings [ECF No. 92]. In their Joint Motion, the parties
acknowledge that the Court recently, on August 3, 2012, held a case
management conference and issued an order setting deadlines for discovery,
motion practice, and other pretrial proceedings. (Jt. Mot. Extend Deadlines
2, ECF No. 92.) Rather than pursue discovery, "the Parties have been
attempting to negotiate a settlement of this ligation . . . the Parties have
neither formally produced information pursuant to their outstanding discovery
requests nor sought judicial intervention to resolve their existing discovery
disputes . . . ." (Id.) At least as early as November 9, 2012, counsel for
both sides understood that a disagreement existed over whether class notice
was required to settle this matter and the scope of any notice. (Id.) That
impasse continues. As a result, the parties have filed this Joint Motion.
Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that "a [case
management] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's
consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). "The pretrial schedule may be modified 'if
it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the
extension.'" Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.
2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th
Cir. 1992)). "If the party seeking the modification 'was not diligent, the
inquiry should end' . . . ." Id.
Here, the parties have not demonstrated continued diligence or even diligence
since November 9th, when the apparent disagreement was apparent. Most
deadlines in the Case Management Conference Order are not imminent. Counsel
have not demonstrated that with diligence they cannot be met. The only
possible exception is the deadline for filing a motion to certify the class.
"Furthermore, mere stipulations by the parties do not constitute good cause
for modification of a scheduling order." 3 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's
Federal Practice § 16.15[1][c], at 16-76 (3d ed. 2012) (footnote omitted).

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to Extend the deadline
for filing the class certification motion thirty days to February 11, 2013.
In all other respects, the Joint Motion [ECF No. 92] is DENIED.

DATE: December 11, 2012
cc:

Judge Moskowitz
All Parties of Record

I:\Chambers Brooks\CASES\CUEVAS0991\Minute11.wpd

IT IS SO ORDERED:

_________________________
Ruben B. Brooks,
U.S. Magistrate Judge
INITIALS: VL (mg) Deputy