Nora Berenice Martinez v. Shulte Hospitality Group, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORA BERENICE MARTINEZ, No. 2:24-cv-02765-DJC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SHULTE HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff and Defendant’s Joint Stipulation and Proposed 19 Order to extend all deadlines by 120 days. (Stipulation (ECF No. 20) at 3.) The Court 20 has twice continued all deadlines at the parties’ request. On April 2, 2025, the Court 21 granted the parties request to extend all deadlines by 10 months. (ECF No. 12.) On 22 March 31, 2026, the parties again requested a continuance of all deadlines, this time 23 by 120 days, which the Court granted. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) In the most recent order, 24 the parties were “advised that the Court will entertain no further requests for 25 modification of the pretrial scheduling order absent good cause, with compelling 26 circumstances shown.” (ECF No. 18.) 27 District courts have broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 28 litigation. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). A 1 | scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's 2 | consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Under this standard, a “schedule may be modified if 3 | it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 4 | Krohne Fund, LP v. Simonsen, 681 F. App'x 635, 638 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Zivkovic 5 | v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)) (internal quotation marks 6 | omitted). 7 The parties have not shown the diligence, good cause, and compelling 8 | circumstances that would warrant a third continuance of all deadlines. The parties 9 | request an extension of time solely because they have not yet reached an agreement 10 | about the scope of the putative class. (Stipulation at 2.) The parties assert that they 11 | cannot participate in the Belair-West Notice process without “first finalizing discussions 12 | onthe scope of the putative class.” (/d.) But they offer no reason why they have been 13 | unable to do so in the nearly two months since Defendant responded to Plaintiff's 14 | Requests for Production and Interrogatories. The parties met and conferred once, 15 | over a month ago, to discuss this issue. (/d.) These facts do not indicate the current 16 | schedule “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking 17 | extension” as the parties have not acted diligently. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request for continuance 19 | of all deadlines (ECF No. 20) is DENIED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | Dated: _ July 7, 2026 Donel J Cob bya tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 | DJC7 - Martinez24cv02765.schedulingorder 27 28