Enea v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 12, 2019
• Docket: 4:18-cv-02792
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GIORGIO ENEA, Case No. 18-cv-02792-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 61 10 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff Giorgio Enea moved to extend the deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order. Dkt. 14 No. 61 (“Mot.”). Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court denied Plaintiff’s 15 motion on November 8, 2019, Dkt. No. 64, and issues this short order explaining its reasoning for 16 the record. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for 19 good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 20 standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. 21 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 22 Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983 amendment) (noting court may modify schedule “if it cannot 23 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension”). Thus, “Rule 16(b)’s 24 ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id.; 25 see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Where the moving 26 party has not been diligent, the inquiry ends, and the motion should be denied. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. 27 Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Whether or not to 1 controlling discovery.” United States v. Reliance Ins. Co., 799 F.2d 1382, 1387 (9th Cir. 1986). 2 Il. DISCUSSION 3 Plaintiff filed his motion three days before discovery closed, seeking to extend the 4 || discovery deadline by approximately seven months, and the subsequent deadlines by 5 approximately four to five months. See generally Mot. According to Plaintiff, this extension is 6 || necessary because MBUSA purportedly disclosed that discovery was in the possession of its 7 parent company, Daimler AG. at 2. Because Daimler AG is a foreign corporation, Plaintiff 8 || claims that it would take “approximately 3 months just to perfect service through the Hague 9 Convention.” Id. at 3. 10 The Court finds Plaintiff fails to show good cause to extend the deadlines in the Court’s 11 Scheduling Order. While Plaintiff tries to shift the blame onto Defendant for refusing to accept 12 service on behalf of Daimler AG (which is not a Defendant in this action), Plaintiff never raised 13 || the possibility of seeking discovery from Daimler AG until October 25, 2019, two weeks before 14 || the discovery deadline. Dkt. No. 63-1, Declaration of Alfredo W. Amoedo 4] 10. And Plaintiff, by 3 15 || his own admission, discovered that Defendant purchases replacement sunroofs “and/or their a 16 || component parts from Daimler AG” on July 23, 2019. Mot. at 2. Plaintiff could have sought to 3 17 subpoena Daimler AG in July, or could have raised this discovery issue with the Court at that 18 time. Instead, he waited over three months to request an extension just three days before the 19 discovery deadline. Plaintiff clearly was not diligent in seeking to extend the deadlines. 20 Wl. CONCLUSION 21 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion to extend deadlines. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: 11/12/2019 24 7 Haspareed Ld, i. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28