Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00052/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00052-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 07:499 Agricultural Commodities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRISPIN RODRIGUEZ, individually & 

dba GROWER’S DIRECT PRODUCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

OLD WEST EXPORT, INC., a California 

corporation and FRANCES MURILLO, an 

individual,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00052-NONE-BAM

ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR LEAVE 

TO AMEND ANSWER

(Doc. 23)

On February 22, 2021, Defendant Frances Murillo filed a motion for summary judgment. 

(Doc. 19.) The hearing on the motion was continued to April 26, 2021. (Doc. 22.)

On April 13, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation to allow Defendant Frances Murillo to 

amend her answer to include a defense for failure to execute, file, and publish a fictitious business 

name statement to conform the pleading to the facts. (Doc. 23.) In their stipulation, the parties 

agree that this defense has not been waived by Defendant Murillo. The parties also indicate that 

if a refiling of the motion for summary judgment is required after the pleading is amended, then 

there is good cause to amend the scheduling order to allow for the filing of Defendant Murillo’s 

motion for summary judgment after the amendment so that the motion may be decided and 

Case 1:20-cv-00052-JLT-BAM Document 26 Filed 04/16/21 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

potentially avoid unnecessary litigation and trial. (Id.)

On the same date, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the April 26 hearing on 

Defendant Murillo’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 24.) The parties indicated that good 

cause existed to continue the hearing based on Defendant Murillo’s pending request for an order 

allowing her to amend her answer to include a defense for failure to execute, file, and publish a 

fictitious business name statement to conform the pleading to the facts. The parties also indicated 

that Defendant Murillo’s pending request to amend will narrow the issues presented for summary 

judgment. (Id.) The district court granted the stipulation and continued the summary judgment 

motion hearing to May 24, 2021. (Doc. 25.)

As to the parties’ instant request, the deadline to amend the parties’ pleadings expired on 

October 2, 2020. (Doc. 18.) The stipulation to amend Defendant Murillo’s answer does not 

explain the delay in seeking leave to amend after expiration of the amendment deadline or 

otherwise establish good cause for amendment of that deadline in the Scheduling Order. 

Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that the proposed amendment may narrow the issues presented 

for summary judgment and may potentially avoid unnecessary litigation. In the interests of both 

judicial and party economy, and good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulation for Defendant 

Murillo to amend her answer to include a defense for failure to execute, file, and publish a 

fictitious business name statement is HEREBY GRANTED. Within five (5) days after entry of 

this order, Defendant Murillo shall file her amended answer. If the parties seek further 

amendment of the Scheduling Order, any such request must be supported by good cause. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00052-JLT-BAM Document 26 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 2