Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00027/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00027-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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 

JEFFREY LANINI, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-00027-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Krista Lanini move for relief from this court’s previous 

order, which denied the parties’ stipulated request to continue pretrial dates and deadlines. The 

motion is denied. 

The Laninis request relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which 

allows relief “from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.” The orders from which they seek 

relief were not final, but rather mid-case scheduling orders. “Rule 60(b) does not provide relief 

from judgments, orders, or proceedings that are not final decisions . . . .” Meas v. City & Cty. of 

San Francisco, 681 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1142 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing, inter alia, United States v. 

Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000)). 

Nevertheless, as long as a district court has jurisdiction over a case, it has inherent 

authority to “reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be 

Case 2:13-cv-00027-KJM-EFB Document 87 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 3
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

sufficient.” City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica BayKeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(citation, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted). In addition, Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure authorizes courts to revise “any order or other decision . . . that adjudicates fewer 

than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . at any time before 

the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 54(b). 

Reconsideration along these avenues is appropriate when necessary to correct clear 

error or prevent manifest injustice, if new evidence became available, or if controlling law 

changed in the meantime. Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians v. California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 

1063, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty. v. AC&S Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). A litigant who requests reconsideration must explain “facts or law of a 

strongly convincing nature” before relief may be awarded. Knight v. Rios, No. 09-00823, 2010 

WL 5200906, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010). 

Here, the Laninis ask the court to reconsider its decision not to allow more time for 

the disclosure of expert witnesses. Mot. Relief, ECF No. 81. Counsel explains that he thought 

the deadline for the disclosure of expert witnesses could be extended by agreement and without 

the court’s permission during private mediation. See id. at 3–4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(2)(D)). The Rule he relies on provides otherwise: “A party must make [expert witness 

disclosures] at the times and in the sequence that the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D). 

So does this court’s scheduling order: “[T]he Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order shall not be 

modified except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause. Agreement by the parties 

pursuant to stipulation alone does not constitute good cause.” Order Nov. 5, 2014, at 9, ECF 

No. 60. 

Deadlines must be enforced if they are to be effective at all. Wong v. Regents of 

Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005); Legault v. Zambrano, 105 F.3d 24, 28–29 (1st 

Cir. 1997). Quiescence in reliance on a misinterpretation of the Federal Rules and this court’s 

orders is not “good cause” for an extension of time, and the court will not reconsider its decision 

on that basis. Nor will manifest injustice be the result of holding the parties to those deadlines. 

Case 2:13-cv-00027-KJM-EFB Document 87 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

The scheduling order issued in this case set deadlines for the disclosure of expert witnesses. 

Order Nov. 5, 2014, at 2–3. Twice those deadlines were extended. See Minute Orders, ECF 

Nos. 67, 70. The court warned the parties that missing these deadlines would in all likelihood 

prevent expert witnesses from testifying at trial. Order Nov. 5, 2014, at 9. 

The motion is DENIED. This order resolves ECF No. 81. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 29, 2016 

Case 2:13-cv-00027-KJM-EFB Document 87 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 3