Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02273/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02273-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

05cv2273 J (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK A. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HON. R. JAMES NICHOLSON, as Secretary

of Veteran Affairs; and DOES 1 through 100,

Inclusive,,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05 CV 2273 J (WMc)

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION

TO MODIFY SECOND AMENDED

SCHEDULING ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 30, 2007, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Modify the Second Amended

Scheduling Order in the above-entitled matter. [Doc. No. 36.] For the reasons stated below the joint

motion is DENIED.

II. STANDARD GOVERNING MODIFICATION OF 

PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDERS

Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a scheduling order “shall not

be modified except upon a showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b). Accordingly, when

parties seek to continue deadline set by the court, they must first show good cause exists for the

modification. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). The

good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”

Case 3:05-cv-02273-WMC Document 37 Filed 11/01/07 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 1

The Court notes that the mandatory settlement conference was originally scheduled for

November 9, 2007, but was rescheduled at the request of the parties on September 7, 2007. [Doc. No.

32.]

2 05cv2273 J (WMc)

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “If the party seeking the

modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be

granted.” Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087. 

III. DISCUSSION

Here, the parties have requested a modification of the scheduling order in order to allow

them more time between the date of the mandatory settlement conference with Judge McCurine and

their December 10, 2007 pre-trial conference with the Hon. Napoleon A. Jones. [Joint Motion, 2:1-

3.] Presently, the parties’ mandatory settlement conference is scheduled for November 28, 2007.1

However, Judge McCurine has availability on his calendar to hold a mandatory settlement

conference earlier than the presently scheduled date of November 28, 2007. Consequently, good

cause has not been shown to reschedule the pre-trial conference and dates attendant to it when a

mandatory settlement conference may be held earlier than requested by counsel. The parties’ joint

motion is, therefore, DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 The Court will hold a Mandatory Settlement Conference on November 6, 2007 at 2:00 p.m.

in the chambers of the Honorable William McCurine, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, 940 Front

Street, Courtroom C, San Diego, California, 92101.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 1, 2007

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

COPY TO:

HONORABLE NAPOLEON A. JONES, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case 3:05-cv-02273-WMC Document 37 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 2