Natural Thoughts, Incorporated v. Performance Touch, LLC et al

Filing 88

ORDER Denying: (1) Joint Motion to Continue Briefing Schedule; and (2) Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order Without Prejudice (ECF Nos. 86 , 87 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez on 5/13/2019. (tcf)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NATURAL THOUGHTS, INC.,

Case No.: 17cv2148-BEN-LL
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14
16

PERFORMANCE TOUCH, LLC; THE
HYGENIC CORPORATION;
PERFORMANCE HEALTH HOLDINGS
CORPORATION; and DOES 2-10,

17

ORDER DENYING: (1) JOINT
MOTION TO CONTINUE
BRIEFING SCHEDULE; AND
(2) JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

Defendants.

15

[ECF Nos. 86, 87]

18
19

Currently before the Court are the Parties’: (1) “Joint Motion to Continue Briefing

20

Schedule and Hearing Date on Pending Motions” [ECF No. 86]; and (2) “Joint Motion to

21

Modify Scheduling Order and Continue Deadlines for 60 Days To Allow Parties to

22

Participate in Private Mediation” [ECF No. 87].

23

In the Parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Briefing Schedule, the Parties request a

24

two-week extension of the deadlines to complete any remaining briefing on: (1)

25

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 61]; (2) Defendants’ Motion to

26

Exclude Expert Testimony [ECF No. 70]; and (3) Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application [ECF

27

No. 79]. In support, the Parties state the extension is warranted so that the Parties can

28

avoid incurring “additional litigation expenses” while the Court rules on the Parties’
1
17cv2148-BEN-LL

1

“Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order.” Id. at 2.

2

However, after reviewing the Parties concurrently filed “Joint Motion to Modify

3

Scheduling Order,” the Court finds it is not clear what relief the Parties are actually

4

seeking in this second motion. Although the Parties characterize the motion as a request

5

to “modify” the scheduling order, they also state they are effectively seeking a “stay” of

6

the entire case. See ECF Nos. 86 at 2; 87 at 3.1 The Parties have therefore not made clear

7

whether they are requesting: (1) that the entire case be stayed; (2) that the dates and

8

deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order be modified (without a stay); or (3)

9

that the entire case be stayed for a certain period of time and that the deadlines set forth in

10

the Court’s Scheduling Order be modified accordingly.

11

For the above reasons, the Parties’ Motions are DENIED WITHOUT

12

PREJUDICE. If the Parties re-file their Motions, they are directed to clearly set forth the

13

relief they are seeking.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: May 13, 2019

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

1

For example, the Parties state that should the Court grant their Joint Motion to Modify
the Scheduling Order, than all of the briefing dates and hearing dates for any pending
motions and the Parties’ agreements regarding various discovery deadlines would
somehow automatically be continued by sixty days. ECF No. 86 at 4. This is more
consistent with a stay of the entire case than an extension of the Court’s deadlines.
2
17cv2148-BEN-LL