Smokers Alley Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 12, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01012
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SMOKERS ALLEY INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01012-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PARTIES’ 13 v. STIPULATED REQUEST TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, (Doc. 16) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Smokers Alley Inc., (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint 18 in state court on June 30, 2025, before Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Defendant”) 19 removed the action to this Court on August 13, 2025. (Doc. 1). On November 17, 2025, the Court 20 entered the scheduling order setting forth discovery, motion and pretrial and trial dates and 21 deadlines. (Doc. 10). The scheduling order admonished the parties that “[s]tipulations extending 22 the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits 23 or declarations, and where appropriate exhibits, which establish good cause granting the relief 24 requested.” Id. at 8 (emphasis in original). 25 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request to amend the operative 26 scheduling order, filed on May 11, 2026 (Doc. 16) – the same day nonexpert discovery closed. 27 The parties represent that they “have been working diligently to complete discovery” which “was 28 unable to be completed sooner” due to busy schedules. Id. at 2. The parties assert good cause 1 exists to amend the scheduling order to allow the parties additional time to complete outstanding 2 discovery based on “the busy trial calendars and unavailability of the Parties’ attorneys and 3 experts.” Id. at 2-3. 4 Discussion 5 District courts enter scheduling orders in actions to “limit the time to join other parties, 6 amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). Once 7 entered, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.” Fed. R 8 Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case management problems. Johnson v. 9 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 “A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 11 disregarded by counsel without peril.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Under Federal Rule of 12 Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 13 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). As the Court of Appeals has observed: 14 In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts in both the federal and state systems routinely set schedules and establish deadlines to 15 foster efficient treatment and resolution of cases. Those efforts will be successful only if the deadlines are taken seriously by the parties, 16 and the best way to encourage that is to enforce the deadlines. Parties must understand that they will pay a price for failure to comply 17 strictly with scheduling and other orders... 18 Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 19 standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d 20 at 609. If the moving party is unable to reasonably meet a deadline despite acting diligently, the 21 scheduling order may be modified. Id. If, however, the moving party “‘was not diligent, the inquiry 22 should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302 23 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 24 Here, although the parties represent that good cause exists to grant their request because 25 they have “been working diligently to complete discovery[,]” their generalized characterizations 26 are insufficient for the Court to measure the diligence with which the case has been litigated. This 27 is why the Court admonished the parties upon scheduling the case that it would not consider 28 stipulated requests to extend deadlines unless supported by attorney declarations that establish good 1 | cause — namely, diligence — for granting an extension. (Doc. 10 at 8). Instead of providing in 2 | support of their request the required declarations detailing their diligent conduct of discovery, the 3 | parties rely on unsworn representations about the procedural posture of the case. But the Court’s 4 | dispositive inquiry focuses on the parties’ diligence (Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087), not generalized 5 | statements of unrealized delays in the prosecution of the case due to “busy trial calendars.” 6 || Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087. 7 The parties’ failure to factually establish their conduct of discovery with due diligence is 8 | highlighted by their delay until the day nonexpert discovery closed before seeking relief of Court. 9 | See Local Rule 144(d) (“Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from 10 | other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent.”); Doc. 11 | 10 at 4 (‘No motion to amend or stipulation to amend the case schedule will be entertained unless 12 || itis filed at least three days before the first deadline the parties wish to extend.”). In short, because 13 | the parties fail to demonstrate that they are unable to reasonably meet a deadline despite acting 14 | diligently, the Court is unable to find that an extension of case management dates is warranted. 15 || Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 16 Conclusion and Order 17 Accordingly, the parties’ stipulated request to amend the operative scheduling order (Doc. 18 | 16)is DENIED. 19 | ITIS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ May 12, 2026 | Wr bY 2] UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28