Padilla v. Veyo LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 2, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02380
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Marina Padilla, et al., No. CV-23-02380-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Veyo LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time to amend the 16 pleadings. (Doc. 25). Specifically, the motion seeks additional time to discover the name 17 of another person Plaintiffs seek to add as a defendant. 18 The motion fails to comply with Local Rule Civil 7.3(b), which requires that any 19 request for extension of time include the position of the opposing party. The motion will 20 be denied for this procedural reason alone. 21 Moreover, the motion seeks until June 1, 2024 to amend the complaint. It makes no 22 mention of the other deadlines in this case. The fact discovery deadline is June 14, 2024. 23 The Court is skeptical that Plaintiffs believe they can add a party June 1, 2024, and 24 complete fact discovery by June 14, 2024. The Court will not grant any unrealistic 25 extensions of time that do not account for all deadlines in the case. 26 Finally, good cause has not been shown. “A schedule may be modified only for 27 good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Rule 16(b)(4) 28 “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. 1 || Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court may modify the || scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Jd. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes (1983 4|| amendment)). The focus of the inquiry is on the moving party’s reasons for the extension. || Id. 6 Here, Plaintiffs state that they did not receive the name of the driver in “initial 7\| discovery.” (Doc. 25). In the Scheduling Order issued on January 19, 2024, the Court 8 || indicated that initial disclosure statements had already been exchanged. Thus, Plaintiffs 9|| knew on January 19, 2024, that further discovery would be needed. Plaintiffs provide no 10 || explanation as to what they have done in this regard since January 19, 2024, nor why 60 11 || additional days is necessary. 12 For all of the foregoing reasons, 13 IT IS ORDERED that the motion for extension of time (Doc. 25) is denied.! 14 Dated this 2nd day of April, 2024. 15 16 i C 17 James A. Teilborg 18 Senior United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ! Additionally, the Court notes that Jennifer Rebholz address and firm name as listed in this Court’s electronic filing system does not match her signature line on her filings. Ms. Rebhotz must update her contact information within 5 business days. _2-