Andres Damian v. American National Property and Casualty Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 20, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00964
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 ANDRES DAMIAN, 6 Case No. 2:25-cv-00964-NJK Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 [Docket No. 27] AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY AND 9 CASUALTY COMPANY, 10 Defendant. 11 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend case management deadlines. Docket 12 No. 27. 13 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 14 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 15 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 16 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The diligence 17 obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. 18 Ariz. 2012). “The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire 19 period of time already allowed.” Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1177 20 (D. Nev. 2022). The Court considers whether relief from the scheduling order is sought based on 21 the development of matters that could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the schedule 22 was established. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Courts may 23 also consider other pertinent circumstances, including whether the movant was diligent in seeking 24 modification of the scheduling order once it became apparent that the movant required relief from 25 the deadline at issue. Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). 26 “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of 27 relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. When diligence has not been shown in support of an extension 28 1 request, “the inquiry should end.” Id.1 Although the Court may consider the joint nature of a 2 stipulation to extend, “[t]hat a request is made jointly neither mandates allowance of the extension 3 sought nor exempts parties from making the necessary showings to justify that relief.” Williams, 4 627 F. Supp. 3d at 1178. 5 This is the parties’ fourth request for an extension of case management deadlines. Docket 6 No. 27; see also Docket Nos. 16, 20, 23. The instant stipulation is, once again, inconsistent 7 regarding the length of the extension requested. Contrast Docket No. 27 at 2 (“by thirty (30) 8 days”) with id. at 4 (“period of ninety (90) days”) with id. at 4 (proposed new deadlines; requesting 9 an extension of approximately 60 days from the incorrect case management deadlines); see also 10 Docket No. 24 at 2 (the Court’s order identifying the same issue in the parties’ previous 11 stipulation). Additionally, the stipulation, once again, fails to provide the correct current case 12 management deadlines. Contrast Docket No. 27 at 4 with Docket No. 23 at 3; see also Docket 13 No. 24 at 2 (the Court’s order identifying the same issue in the parties’ previous stipulation). 14 Further, among the reasons provided for the extension requested is that additional time is 15 needed to “provide information to experts before the current initial expert disclosure deadline.” 16 Docket No. 27 at 2. However, the Court has previously informed the parties that needing 17 additional time to obtain necessary information does not establish good cause for the extension 18 sought. See Docket Nos. 24 at 2, 17 at 1-2 (citing Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 19 3d 1172, 1180 (D. Nev. 2022)). Moreover, the scheduling order in this matter was entered on July 20 16, 2025, see Docket No. 13, and the parties have not demonstrated diligence in conducting 21 discovery through this period. See Docket No. 27 at 2-3. 22 Nonetheless, the Court is sympathetic to defense counsel’s wife’s medical issues and finds 23 that good cause exists for a final 30-day extension of the subject deadlines. Given the parties’ lack 24 of diligence in conducting discovery to date, the Court is not inclined to grant any further 25 26 1 The Ninth Circuit has emphasized the importance of scheduling orders, see Desio v. State 27 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 339 F.R.D. 632, 641 (D. Nev. 2011) (collecting cases), and has stated bluntly that Rule 16 scheduling orders must “be taken seriously,” Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 28 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). 1} extensions. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulation in part. Docket No. 27. Case management deadlines are RESET as follows: 3 e Initial expert disclosures: March 9, 2026 4 e Rebuttal expert disclosures: April 6, 2026 5 e Discovery cutoff: May 6, 2026 6 e Dispositive motions: June 5, 2026 7 e Joint proposed pretrial order: July 6, 2026, or 30 days after resolution of dispositive 8 motions 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: January 20, 2026 a on. Nancy J. Koppe* 12 United States Magistrate Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28