Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01851/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01851-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

16-CV-1851-DMS-WVG

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN M. FLOYD & ASSOCIATES, 

INC., a Texas corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIRST IMPERIAL CREDIT UNION, a 

California corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-CV-1851-DMS-WVG

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 

TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

[ECF No. 18]

I. BACKGROUND

Present before the Court is the parties Joint Motion (“Motion”) to modify the 

Scheduling Order and extend deadlines for discovery. (ECF No. 18.) On December 20, 

2016, the Court issued a Scheduling Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

(“FRCP”) 16(b) that set January 31, 2017 as the date by which the parties were to 

“complete the inspection of Defendant First Imperial Credit Union.” (ECF No. 13 at 2.) In 

their Motion, the parties state that they have agreed to conduct the inspection of 

Defendant’s facility on February 14, 2017 and have scheduled the inspection for the same 

day. (ECF No. 18 at 2.) Given this, the parties request the Court extend the deadline by 

which this must be completed to February 28, 2017. (Id.)

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01851-DMS-WVG Document 20 Filed 02/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-CV-1851-DMS-WVG

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

II. RULING

The Court does not find good cause to grant this request and hereby DENIES the 

Joint Motion with prejudice for the reasons set forth below.

A. NO GOOD CAUSE SHOWN

Pursuant to FRCP 16(b)(3), a district court is required to enter a pretrial scheduling 

order that “must limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete 

discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). The scheduling order “controls 

the course of the action unless the court modifies it [ ]” and FRCP “16 is to be taken 

seriously.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d); Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 

1994). Indeed, parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to [the Court’s] schedule 

throughout the subsequent course of the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 

605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). “A scheduling order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly 

entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril.’” Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case 

Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Me. 1985)).

FRCP 16(b)(4) “provides that a district court’s scheduling order may be modified 

upon a showing of ‘good cause,’ an inquiry which focuses on the reasonable diligence of 

the moving party.” Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2007); citing 

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In Johnson, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal explained,

...Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily concerns the diligence of 

the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial 

schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 

seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 

amendment)...[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons 

for seeking modification...If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should 

end.

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

In part, the “good cause” standard requires the parties to demonstrate that 

Case 3:16-cv-01851-DMS-WVG Document 20 Filed 02/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-CV-1851-DMS-WVG

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

“noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding [their]

diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could not have 

been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling 

conference...” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608. However, “carelessness is not compatible with 

a finding of diligence and offers no basis for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

Here, the parties have offered no cause, let alone good cause for amending the 

Scheduling Order. The parties simply agreeing to a date past the deadline established by 

the Court does not substitute diligence and establish good cause. Rather, it appears the 

parties “cavalierly disregarded” the scheduling order, at their own peril, and assumed the 

Court would simply rubber stamp their request. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. The parties have 

utterly failed to show good cause for both failing to schedule the inspection of the premises 

within the time frame set by the Court and for waiting until the eleventh hour to file a 

motion to request an extension of time. The Court expected the parties to demonstrate far 

more enthusiasm in conducting the inspection of Defendant’s credit union. It was certainly 

in the interest of all the parties to this lawsuit to convene at the credit union, inspect the 

overdraft protection program, and then swiftly analyze the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and 

Defendant’s defenses.

Given the lackadaisical approach displayed by all parties to perform this simple task, 

the Court is left with the unmistakable impression that inspecting the credit union was not 

that important. The Court sincerely hopes this is not the approach that counsel intends to 

take with their other discovery obligations.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the Joint Motion with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01851-DMS-WVG Document 20 Filed 02/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3