Bond v. Fluke Corporation et al
ORDER denying Parties' 32 Stipulated Motion to Extend Scheduling Order without prejudice. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
PAMELA BOND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
CASE NO. 22-cv-1241 MJP
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED
MOTION TO EXTEND
FLUKE CORPORATION and FLUKE
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Extend the
Scheduling Order. (Dkt. No. 32.) The parties ask the Court to set aside the current trial date and
case deadlines in order to “tailor a case schedule that meets their needs for flexibility.” (Motion
at 2.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) states that “a schedule may be modified only for
good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’
standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v.
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “[T]he focus of the inquiry is
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER - 1
upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification” and “[i]f that party was not diligent,
the inquiry should end.” Id. (citation omitted). The Court held a hearing with the parties to
discuss whether good cause existed to support their Motion. (Dkt. No. 33.) The parties failed to
identify any good cause that might possibly sustain their request to set aside the trial date and
interim deadlines. There is no record of diligence and no valid reason presented to support an
extension. The Court DENIES the Motion without prejudice.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
Dated May 19, 2023.
Marsha J. Pechman
United States Senior District Judge
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER - 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?