Bolshin v. Elate Moving Network LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00363
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 MATTHEW BOLSHIN, D.P.M. and CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00363-MJP IRINA KHMELNIK, 11 ORDER DENYING Plaintiffs, CONTINUANCE 12 v. 13 ELATE MOVING NETWORK LLC, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to Change Trial 18 Date and Amend Case Schedule (Dkt. No. 19.) Having reviewed the Motion and all supporting 19 documents, the Court DENIES the Motion without prejudice. 20 The underlying dispute involves allegations that Defendant Elate Moving Network LLC’s 21 violated the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, when it failed to provide Plaintiffs 22 Matthew Bolshin and Irina Khmelnik with a sufficient Bill of Lading detailing a shipment of 23 goods that was ultimately stolen and rendered partially unrecoverable. (See generally, Complaint 24 1 (Dkt. No. 1).) The Parties “have exchanged discovery, including the amount of available 2 insurance money available for this claim,” but recently “learned that there is likely only half the 3 amount of coverage available” than they first thought. (Motion ¶¶ 3–4.) Accordingly, the Parties 4 claim that “[t]hese changes affect any settlement discussions the parties were engaged in and

5 require the parties to revise their litigation strategy.” (Id. ¶ 5.) The Parties further state that they 6 would “benefit from additional time to complete their discovery.” (Id. ¶ 6.) They now seek an 7 order continuing the trial date and all remaining case schedule dates “for approximately 6 8 months.” (Id. ¶¶ 8–9.) 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 provides that a scheduling order “may be modified 10 only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); LCR 16(b)(6). 11 “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 12 amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The 13 district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the 14 diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s

15 notes (1983 amendment)). 16 The Court finds an absence of good cause on the record presented. First, that the Parties 17 are engaged in voluntary settlement discussions has no bearing on the trial date and case 18 deadlines previously set by the Court. This remains the case even upon the Parties learning that 19 there may be less potential recovery as they originally thought. Second, although the Parties 20 agree that they would “benefit” from more time to conduct discovery, “[m]ere failure to 21 complete discovery within the time allowed does not constitute good cause for an extension or 22 continuance.” LCR 16(b)(6). 23

24 1 In sum, there are inadequate grounds articulated that might justify the continuance of the 2 trial date and remaining case deadlines. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion. See Fed. R. 3 Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Court’s denial is without prejudice to a renewed motion that addresses the 4 Court’s concerns and sets forth good cause for any requested deadline extensions.

5 6 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 7 Dated January 22, 2025. A 8 9 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24