Schroeder v. City of Vista

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY SCHROEDER, on behalf of Case No.: 3:22-cv-01898-JO-AHG himself and other similarly situated 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT individuals, MOTION TO VACATE 13 Plaintiff, MANDATORY SETTLEMENT 14 CONFERENCE AND PRETRIAL v. CONFERENCE DATES 15 CITY OF VISTA, 16 [ECF No. 31] Defendant. 17

18 19 20

21 22

23 24

25 26 27

28 1 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Mandatory Settlement 2 Conference and Pretrial Conference Dates, and Set Case Management Conference; or in 3 the Alternative, Continue Dates by Sixty Days. ECF No. 31. 4 Under Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause 5 and with the judge’s consent.” “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been 6 construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, 7 Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence 8 of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking 9 modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 “[T]he court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably 11 be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory 12 committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by 13 acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift 14 Transportation Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. 15 Sept. 19, 2018). 16 Here, the parties explain that the hearing date for Defendant’s Motion for Summary 17 Judgment (“MSJ”) is January 17, 2024, and they do not believe that settlement discussions 18 will be productive until after the Court has ruled on the summary judgment motion. ECF 19 No. 31 at 4. Additionally, Defendant is unable to prepare a settlement counter-offer by the 20 current deadline of January 8, 2024, because any such offer would need to be prepared with 21 the assistance of the City Council, which meets twice a month and has already had its final 22 meeting for December. Id. The parties state that they require additional time to effectively 23 engage in pretrial procedures after the Court’s decision on the Motion for Summary 24 Judgment. Id. Therefore, they request that the Court vacate all remaining deadlines in the 25 case schedule (other than the briefing schedule for the MSJ) and set a further Case 26 Management Conference to reset those deadlines after the Court has ruled on the motion, 27 assuming the ruling does not dispose of the case. Id. In the alternative, if the Court is 28 disinclined to vacate all remaining dates, the parties request a 60-day continuance of the 1 || dates to allow them more time to prepare for the Mandatory Settlement Conference and the 2 || Pretrial Conference after the Court rules on the MSJ. 3 Good cause appearing, and upon consultation with the presiding District Judge in 4 ||this matter, the Joint Motion is GRANTED. The Mandatory Settlement Conference 5 ||currently set for January 19, 2024 and all related deadlines are hereby VACATED. All 6 |}other pretrial dates and deadlines, including the Final Pretrial Conference set for 7 ||March 13, 2024, are also VACATED. 8 The parties must contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard 9 || within three (3) days of the ruling on Defendant’s MSJ to arrange a further Case 10 || Management Conference to reset the dates in the case schedule as necessary. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: December 26, 2023 13 _ Aron yvolar Honorable Allison H. Goddard 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28