Derek Ray Garcia v. Dragados-Flatiron Joint Venture, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 26, 2026
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00946
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 DEREK RAY GARCIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00946-JLT-SKO

9 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED Plaintiff, MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 10 v. AND ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES

11 (Doc. 38)

12 DRAGADOS-FLATIRON JOINT VENTURE, et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Derek Ray Garcia’s unopposed motion to continue 17 trial date and all related pretrial deadlines. (Doc. 38). Having reviewed the motion, the Court 18 finds the matter suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g). 19 Under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may be 20 modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” The good cause standard of Rule 21 16(b) focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party and the reasons for seeking 22 modification. C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 23 2011); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, this 24 court enjoys “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own 25 docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). 26 Here, there is no evidence that Plaintiff has not been diligent. And there is no reason to 27 believe, and Defendants have not responded, much less argued that a continuance will prejudice 28 them. 1 Further, good cause is present to modify the scheduling order to accommodate Defendant 2 Dragados-Flatiron Joint Venture’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 19), which is (1) ripe for 3 review and pending before the District Court and (2) potentially dispositive of the entire action. 4 By continuing the pre-trial and trial dates, the Court will prevent duplication of or unnecessary 5 efforts by the Court or the parties. 6 Because the Court finds no lack of diligence on the part of Plaintiff, no prejudice to 7 Defendants, and good cause to modify the trial date and all pretrial deadlines, it is ORDERED: 8 1. The hearing set for February 18, 2026, (see Doc. 42), is VACATED; 9 2. Plaintiff’s motion to continue the trial date and all pretrial deadlines, (Doc. 38), is 10 GRANTED; 11 3. The November 25, 2025 Scheduling Order, (Doc. 16), as modified by the Court’s 12 June 24, 2025 order, (Doc. 18), is FURTHER MODIFIED as follows: 13 a. The deadline to provide proposed settlement conference dates is nunc pro 14 tunc VACATED. The parties may jointly contact Courtroom Deputy 15 Wendy Kusamura at wkusamura@caed.uscourts.gov to schedule a 16 settlement conference. 17 b. The pretrial conference is CONTINUED to March 1, 2027 at 1:30 PM in 18 Courtroom 4 (JLT) before District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston 19 c. The trial is CONTINUED to April 27, 2027 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 4 20 (JLT) before District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22

23 Dated: January 26, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24

25 26 27 28