Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01070/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01070-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK STORMS, No. 2:06-cv-01070-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES CONFORTI,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Mark Storms (“Plaintiff”) brought this fraud, breach of

contract, and indemnity action against James Conforti

(“Defendant”), seeking in excess of $150,000 in damages. 

Plaintiff brought the action in this Court based upon diversity

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332 as Plaintiff is a

citizen of California, Defendant is a citizen of Virginia, and

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01070-KJM -GGH Document 46 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

In the present motion, Defendant seeks leave of court to

permit late filing of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.1

BACKGROUND

On August 16, 2006, this Court issued a Pretrial (Status)

Scheduling Order. The Order provided that all dispositive

motions be heard not later than August 21, 2007, and filed to

allow for proper notice of hearing under the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and/or Local Rules. Local Rule 78-230(b)

requires motions to be heard not less than twenty-eight days

after personal service and filing of the motion, and not less

than thirty-one days after mailed or electronic service and

filing. 

Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 21,

2007. Shortly thereafter, Defendant’s counsel became aware that

the Court had stricken the Motion for Summary Judgment because it

was not filed in compliance with the Pretrial Scheduling Order. 

The trial is scheduled for December 19, 2007, and the parties are

required to file a Joint Pretrial Conference Statement on

October 15, 2007. 

Defendant now moves for leave to file his Motion for Summary

Judgment. In essence, Defendant’s motion requests this Court

amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order to allow the Motion for

Summary Judgment to be heard on November 2, 2007. 

Case 2:06-cv-01070-KJM -GGH Document 46 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Accordingly, this Motion for Leave shall be treated as a motion

to amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order.

STANDARD

The Court is normally required to enter a pretrial

scheduling order within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The scheduling order "controls the

subsequent course of the action" unless modified by the Court. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). Orders entered before the final pretrial

conference may be modified upon a showing of "good cause," but

orders "following a final pretrial conference shall be modified

only to prevent manifest injustice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e).

Rule 16(b)’s "good cause" standard primarily considers the

diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 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 Notes (1983 Amendment); Id. 

Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of

diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. Id.

Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party

opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny

a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's

reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not

diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. at 609.

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01070-KJM -GGH Document 46 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

 ANALYSIS

Defendant argues he relied upon the Notice of Electronic

Filing issued on August 16, 2006, which states: "Dispositive

Motions due by 8/21/2007." Defendant requests November 2, 2007,

as the new hearing date of the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Defendant argues it would be more efficient for the Court to

decide the Motion for Summary Judgment because it could dispose

of the case before trial. Plaintiff argues the two Pretrial

Scheduling Orders make clear that August 21, 2007, is the latest

date motions are to be heard, not filed. Since Plaintiff's

counsel will be in trial on another matter from September 10,

2007 until September 21, 2007, Plaintiff further asserts that

granting this motion would not provide Plaintiff with adequate

time to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and

prepare for the Pretrial Conference scheduled for October 29,

2007.

Defendant has not offered any evidence establishing good

cause for his late filing of the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Further, Defendant has not shown diligence in complying with the

Pretrial Schedule. Failing to comply with the clear requirements

of the Pretrial Schedule because Defense counsel mistakenly

relied upon the Notice of Electronic Filing does not establish

good cause and demonstrates a lack of diligence. This is

particularly true where the Notice of Electronic Filing, attached

to Defendant’s reply, was not clear and Defendant could have

resolved this issue by simply clicking a link within the e-mail.

///

Case 2:06-cv-01070-KJM -GGH Document 46 Filed 10/15/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Defendant did not properly calendar the deadlines set forth in

the Pretrial Scheduling Order. This carelessness does not

support a finding of diligence and does not warrant amending the

Pretrial Scheduling Order.

Further, Plaintiff would be prejudiced by a modification of

the order. Plaintiff's counsel will be in trial in the month of

September, which was likely scheduled around the timing of the

present matter, and Plaintiff will need to prepare for the

Pretrial Conference during the period Defendant suggests the

Motion for Summary Judgment could be handled. 

CONCLUSION

Defendant failed to establish good cause for failing to

comply with the Pretrial Schedule and did not show diligence in

attempting to do so. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion For Leave

is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment will not be

heard.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01070-KJM -GGH Document 46 Filed 10/15/07 Page 5 of 5