Patterson v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 18, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02398
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Melvin Patterson, No. 2:21-cv-02398-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Six Flags Theme Parks Inc., et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Melvin Patterson applies ex parte to extend the deadline for dispositive motions 18 | in this action. ECF No. 44. The court previously ordered all dispositive motions to be heard by 19 | January 26, 2024. ECF No. 37. Patterson asks that all dispositive motions be filed by that date. 20 | ECF No. 44. Patterson does not explain the reason for his request, but he argues an extension will 21 | cause no prejudice and will permit the court and parties to narrow the issues for trial. Rozsynksi 22 | Decl. 8-12, ECF No. 44-1. The defense does not stipulate to an extension or join the request, 23 | but it has filed no opposition to the ex parte application, and the deadline for oppositions has 24 | passed. 25 “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. 26 | Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also FRCP Bench Order, ECF No. 37 (restating this standard). In this 27 | context, “good cause” is primarily a measure of the requesting party’s diligence. See, e.g., 28 | Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Patterson has not

1 demonstrated good cause under that standard. He has not explained why he cannot comply with 2 the scheduling order despite his diligence or why he could not have requested a modification 3 sooner. The ex parte application (ECF No. 44) is therefore denied without prejudice. Any 4 renewed motion or request must be supported by a showing of good cause. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: January 18, 2024.