Platt v. Holland America Line Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 27, 2023
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00062
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 THERESE ROHLING PLATT, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00062-JHC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 HOLLAND AMERICA LINE INC., ET AL., 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. District courts “have inherent power to 15 control their docket.” Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) 16 (quoting Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 17 1998)); see also Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016) (“[D]istrict courts have the inherent 18 authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient 19 resolution of cases.”). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a case schedule may be 20 modified if there is “good cause” and “the judge’s consent.” 21 The Court finds that good cause exists to modify the trial date. This case is set for trial 22 on February 27, 2023. However, numerous motions are still pending. This includes a motion for 23 summary judgment that will not note until February 17, just 10 days before trial. And the 24 l Court’s docket over the coming weeks is particularly busy. The Court is uncertain that it can 2 || resolve these motions with enough time to provide adequate notice to the parties. 3 Accordingly, the Court sua sponte ORDERS that the trial date be moved to April 24, 4 ||2023. The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff's motion to continue the trial date (which motion 5 does not specify a new proposed trial date) (Dkt. # 55).! The Clerk is directed to enter a new 6 scheduling order. 7 Dated this 27th day of January, 2023. 8

10 John H. Chun United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 .. . . oe. . The Court’s decision to continue the trial date is entirely independent of Plaintiffs motion to 3 continue. The Court’s decision rests solely on its own scheduling constraints. The Court expresses no opinion on the merits of Plaintiff’s motion. But the parties are reminded of the Court’s earlier statement that the Court will likely decline further requests to continue “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances.” 24 || Dkt. #39 at 2.