Hartman v. United States

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 19, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01492
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Jason Hartman and Ashley Hartman, No. 2:20-cv-01492-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 United States of America, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 The parties request the court vacate the scheduling order. Stip. at 2; ECF No. 41. They 18 | explain there is good cause because the plaintiff plans to file an unopposed motion for leave to 19 | amend his complaint to add an additional defendant. /d. Due to this amendment, the parties say 20 | they will need more time for discovery. /d. 21 Once a scheduling order is issued, a motion to amend the pleadings is governed by 22 | Rule 16’s “good cause” requirement. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 23 | (9th Cir. 1992); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and 24 | with the judge’s consent.”). Were the court to grant the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his 25 | complaint, then there would likely be good cause to adjust the scheduling order accordingly. 26 | However, that motion for leave to amend is not before the court. Because the plaintiff has not yet 27 | moved for leave to amend, there is not good cause to vacate or modify the scheduling order. 28 | Moreover, the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint must also show good cause and

1 | establish his “diligence” in seeking the amendment. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Until he does so, 2 | the request to vacate the scheduling order is premature. 3 Because the parties have not shown good cause, the court denies the request to vacate 4 | the scheduling order. 5 This order resolves ECF No. 41. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED: October 18, 2022. / 8 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE