Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01161/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01161-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

 09cv1161-BTM (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTHA MARGARITA BARBA DE LA

TORRE and ALEJANDRO DIAZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JERRY L. ICENHOWER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09cv1161-BTM (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

EXTEND LITIGATION DATES AND

MOTION REQUESTING A STAY

[ECF Nos. 89, 94]

On July 28, 2011, Defendant Donna Icenhower filed a motion to continue all pending

deadlines and conference dates, as well as two expired deadlines, for six months. ECF No. 89.

In support, Mrs. Icenhower states that she cannot adequately represent herself until her husband

is released from prison and can assist her in this litigation. Id. at 2-3. Pursuant to this Court’s

briefing schedule (ECF No. 90), the Hobert Icenhower Defendants timely filed a response in

opposition to the motion on August 4, 2011 (ECF No. 91), and the Plaintiffs timely filed a

response in support of the motion on August 4, 2011 (ECF No. 92). On August 5, 2011,

Defendant Jerry Icenhower filed a motion requesting a stay of all proceedings until January 21,

2012, his projected prison release date. ECF No. 94. In support, Mr. Icenhower states that

prison restrictions impede his ability to participate in the discovery and pretrial process and he

is therefore unable to properly represent himself while incarcerated. Id. at 2.

Case 3:09-cv-01161-BTM-BLM Document 95 Filed 08/18/11 Page 1 of 4
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 09cv1161-BTM (BLM)

Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified only

“for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also ECF No. 73 at 7

(stating that dates “will not be modified except for good cause shown”). The Rule 16 good cause

standard focuses on the “reasonable diligence” of the moving party. Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488

F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir.

2000) (stating Rule 16(b) scheduling order may be modified for “good cause” based primarily

on diligence of moving party). Although “the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s

reasons for seeking modification,” a court also may consider the “existence or degree of

prejudice to the party opposing the modification . . . .” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). However, “[i]f [the moving] party was not diligent, the

inquiry should end.” Id.

Here, the Court issued a Rule 16 scheduling order on October 1, 2010, setting forth

discovery and pretrial deadlines. ECF No. 73. Subsequently, in March 2011, Plaintiffs requested

that all pretrial dates “be modified and extended for a minimum of 90 and a maximum of 120

days” due to Mr. Icenhower’s inability or unwillingness to cooperate prior to the resolution of his

criminal case. ECF No. 85. Four months after the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request and continued

all dates approximately 90 days (ECF No. 86), Defendants Donna and Jerry Icenhower filed the

instant motions. Because Defendants Donna and Jerry Icenhower are attempting to further

modify the Court’s pretrial dates, they must establish good cause justifying their request.

Mrs. Icenhower asserts that she cannot afford an attorney and her “only resource” is her

currently incarcerated husband, “who could explain what happened and which documents can

assist in [their] case preparation.” ECF No. 89 at 3. Mr. Icenhower, however, is not expected

to be released for approximately six months, and Mrs. Icenhower states that “he is denied access

to all of the documents needed for this case” while he is in prison. Id. Mrs. Icenhower therefore

argues that she will be “precluded from properly representing [herself]” unless the Court grants

her request for a six-month continuance of all pretrial dates. Id. at 3-4. Similarly, Mr. Icenhower

states that he cannot effectively defend himself until he is released from prison and has access

to “pertinent and relevant discovery information,” including documents, court records, and

Case 3:09-cv-01161-BTM-BLM Document 95 Filed 08/18/11 Page 2 of 4
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 09cv1161-BTM (BLM)

potential witnesses. ECF No. 94 at 2. 

Plaintiffs do not oppose Mrs. Icenhower’s proposed six-month continuance. ECF No. 92.

Counsel for Plaintiffs states that Mr. Icenhower’s testimony is “essential” to the prosecution of

Plaintiffs’ claims and the defense of the Hobert Icenhower Defendants’ counterclaim, but it has

been exceedingly difficult to make arrangements to depose Mr. Icenhower since his incarceration. ECF No. 92, Gaston Decl. ¶¶ 5-7, 9-12. The Hobert Icenhower Defendants, on the other

hand, vehemently oppose any further continuance. ECF No. 91. Although counsel for Plaintiffs

avers that “Plaintiffs have not delayed in the prosecution of this matter” (ECF No. 92, Gaston

Decl. ¶ 11), the Hobert Icenhower Defendants stress that Plaintiffs have neither taken any

depositions nor designated any experts even though “[i]t has been over two years since this case

was filed.” ECF No. 91 at 2. 

Defendants Donna and Jerry Icenhower do not represent, nor does the Court find, that

they have acted with reasonable diligence in moving this case forward. See Noyes, 488 F.3d at

1174; Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1294. This case commenced in May 2009, and Mrs. Icenhower, who

has represented herself from the outset of this action, cannot now rely on Mr. Icenhower’s

incarceration to free her from fulfilling her pretrial obligations. Similarly, Mr. Icenhower’s

incarceration does not justify his non-compliance with this Court’s Orders, particularly because

he did not self-surrender until March 7, 2011. See ECF No. 85, Gaston Decl. ¶ 3. Although both

Mr. Icenhower and counsel for Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Icenhower’s incarceration makes

conducting discovery difficult, neither party sufficiently explains precisely how or why they are

incapable of engaging in discovery and moving this case forward. The Court acknowledges that

Mr. Icenhower’s incarceration complicates this litigation, but the parties are not prohibited from

deposing Mr. Icenhower while he is in prison. Not only did this Court permit Plaintiffs to take Mr.

Icenhower’s deposition on shortened notice prior to the commencement of his custodial

sentence, the Court also explicitly stated that Plaintiffs may file a motion to depose Mr.

Icenhower in custody. ECF No. 84. Although Defendants Donna and Jerry Icenhower, along

with Plaintiffs, suggest that this action will proceed more easily once Mr. Icenhower is released,

Mr. Icenhower’s January 21, 2012 release date is not guaranteed, and this Court declines to

Case 3:09-cv-01161-BTM-BLM Document 95 Filed 08/18/11 Page 3 of 4
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 09cv1161-BTM (BLM)

grant the parties another lengthy extension premised upon an uncertain future.

The Court finds that Defendants Donna and Jerry Icenhower have failed to show the

requisite reasonable diligence and good cause to modify the Court’s scheduling order. Johnson,

975 F.2d at 609 (“[i]f [the moving] party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). Accordingly

their respective motions to extend the pretrial dates and/or stay the case are DENIED. All dates

and deadlines remain as currently set. See ECF No. 86.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 18, 2011

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01161-BTM-BLM Document 95 Filed 08/18/11 Page 4 of 4