Emmalie Seijas, on behalf of themself and others similarly situated v. The Jackson Laboratory, et al.
This text of Emmalie Seijas, on behalf of themself and others similarly situated v. The Jackson Laboratory, et al. (Emmalie Seijas, on behalf of themself and others similarly situated v. The Jackson Laboratory, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMMALIE SEIJAS, on behalf of No. 2:24-cv-03423-DJC-AC themself and others similarly situated, 12
13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 THE JACKSON LABORATORY, et al., 16 Defendants. 17
18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an extension of the 19 deadline to file a motion for class certification and other related deadlines. (Ex Parte 20 Appl. (ECF No. 24).) The Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s 21 application (ECF No. 25), and they did so. (Opp’n (ECF No. 26).) 22 The Scheduling Order in this case designates October 17, 2025, as the 23 deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. (Scheduling Order (ECF 24 No. 20) at 4.) Plaintiff seeks to extend this deadline to April 17, 2026, and 25 proportionally extend related deadlines. (Ex Parte Appl. at 4.) 26 District courts have broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 27 litigation. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). A 28 scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's 1 | consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Under this standard, a “schedule may be modified if 2 | it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 3 | Krohne Fund, LP v. Simonsen, 681 F. App'x 635, 638 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Zivkovic 4 | v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)) (internal quotation marks 5 | omitted). 6 The Court finds sufficient good cause to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file a 7 | motion for class certification. Though Plaintiff has not displayed the level of diligence 8 | this Court expects of litigants, due to Defendants’ largely unresponsive discovery 9 | responses the Court does not expect that Plaintiff can reasonably meet the existing 10 | class certification deadline. Further, Plaintiff's requests for extensions of discovery 11 | deadlines stemmed in part from a good faith belief that the parties were engaged in 12 | informal discovery in furtherance of ongoing settlement negotiations. (Ex Parte Appl. 13 | at 13.) However, the Court declines to extend any other deadlines at this time. 14 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for 15 | class certification is extended to April 17, 2026. The Court warns the parties that no 16 | further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of good cause. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _ October 17, 2025 Donel J Coo ttoa— Hon. Daniel alabretta 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 | DICT -seijas24cv03423.epa 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Emmalie Seijas, on behalf of themself and others similarly situated v. The Jackson Laboratory, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emmalie-seijas-on-behalf-of-themself-and-others-similarly-situated-v-the-caed-2025.