Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00755/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00755-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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 All references to Rule 16 refer to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN BOWMAN, an individual; and )

DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, )

EDUCATION SERVICES: HELPING YOU )

HELP OTHERS, a California public )

benefit corporation, )

) 2:04-cv-0755-GEB-PAN

Plaintiffs, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

BEST WESTERN STATION HOUSE INN; )

THE WILLIFORD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, )

L.P., a California limited )

partnership; BEST WESTERN INTER- )

NATIONAL, INC., an Arizona )

corporation and LEWIS T. WILLIFORD,)

an individual dba BEST WESTERN )

STATION HOUSE INN, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On December 13, 2005, Defendant Best Western International,

Inc. (“BWI”), filed a motion requesting leave to file a summary

judgment motion (“Motion”) for hearing after the law and motion

deadline prescribed by the Rule 16 Scheduling Order governing this

action.1 (See Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, July 5, 2005.)

Case 2:04-cv-00755-GEB-PAN Document 34 Filed 12/15/05 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

On December 13, 2005, BWI also filed an ex parte application

requesting that the Motion be briefed and heard on shortened time. 

Rule 16 allows a Scheduling Order to be modified upon a

showing of good cause. BWI argues that good cause exists because its

counsel failed to calender the law and motion cut-off date due to

inadvertence, mistake, and/or neglect. In addition, BWI argues good

cause exists because a “favorable disposition on the motion for

summary judgment will completely dispose of the matter against

BWI . . . [and] will also reduce the number of issues and witnesses at

trial.” However, a calendering mistake or the possibility of a

favorable disposition do not constitute “good cause” under Rule 16(b). 

See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th

Cir. 1992) (stating that the “good cause” standard focuses on the

diligence of the party seeking modification). Therefore the Motion is

denied. See id. (concluding that if the party seeking modification

fails to demonstrate diligence “the inquiry should end”). The

application to shorten time is also denied because it no longer

concerns a pending motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00755-GEB-PAN Document 34 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2