Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00534/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00534-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

1 

17CV534-LAB(BLM) 

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 

JUAN VIBAL, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 17CV534-LAB(BLM) 

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO 

CONTINUE PRETRIAL AND TRIAL 

DATES 

[ECF No. 36] 

 

On November 1, 2017, the parties filed a “JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL 

AND TRIAL DATES.” ECF No. 32. The parties sought to continue the remaining pretrial deadlines 

by approximately four months. Id. at 2. In support, the parties stated that new counsel 

appeared for Defendant on September 11, 2017,1 Plaintiff’s counsel “were both involved in 

lengthy trials over the last two months,” and Plaintiff’s counsel were not admitted pro hac vice

until October 19, 2017. Id. at 1. The Court did not find that there was good cause for a four 

month continuance of all deadlines, but granted the parties a one month continuance of the 

deadlines. ECF No. 34. 

On November 22, 2017, the parties filed a “SECOND JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

                                                      

1 The motion states September 11, 2018, but the correct date is September 11, 2017. See ECF 

No. 32 at 1; see also ECF No. 25. 

Case 3:17-cv-00534-LAB-BLM Document 37 Filed 11/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

17CV534-LAB(BLM) 

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

PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES.” ECF No. 36. The parties seek to continue the remaining case 

deadlines by approximately three months. Id. at 2. In support, the parties reiterate that defense 

counsel substituted in on the case on September 11, 2017 and that Plaintiff’s counsel, was not 

admitted pro hac vice until October 19, 2017. Id. at 1. The parties also argue that Mr. Moura 

“suffered a temporarily debilitating back injury, and has been unable to resume work” making it 

appear that he will be unable to conduct the preparation for and defense of the depositions in 

early December as the parties had hoped. Id. at 2. 

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. 14 at 

7 (stating that dates and times “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, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating Rule 16(b) scheduling order may be modified for “good 

cause” based primarily on diligence of moving party). Essentially, “the focus of the inquiry is 

upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a court also may consider the “existence or 

degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification . . . .” Id. 

The parties have failed to establish good cause for continuing the remaining deadlines by 

another three months. The parties state that Plaintiff’s counsel was not admitted pro hac vice 

until October 19, 2017. ECF No. 36 at 1. While that is correct [see ECF Nos. 30 and 31], 

according to the docket, Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Sander Dawson, who participated in the 

telephonic Early Neutral Evaluation Conference on June 16, 2017, works for the same firm, 

Dawson & Rosenthal, P.C., as Steven Dawson and Anita Rosenthal who were the attorneys 

admitted pro hac vice on October 19, 2017. The Court’s Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery 

and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings was issued on June 19, 2017. ECF No. 14. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s counsel has been aware of the Court’s dates since they were set in June and in fact 

served discovery on June 29, 2017, July 17, 2017, and August 2, 11, and 21, 2017. See ECF 

Nos. 16, 19, 20-23. Therefore, the October 2017 admission of two attorneys pro hac vice does 

Case 3:17-cv-00534-LAB-BLM Document 37 Filed 11/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

17CV534-LAB(BLM) 

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

not demonstrate good cause for continuing pre-trial dates by several months. The parties have 

also failed to explain why the previous one month continuance of the deadlines was insufficient 

for defense counsel who was substituted in as counsel on September 11, 2017. 

Finally, the parties state that defense counsel injured his back on November 11-12, 2017 

and has been unable to resume work, but fail to provide any declarations from counsel or his 

treating doctors or details in support of this assertion. ECF No. 36. The Court has no knowledge 

of the severity of counsel’s injury, how he is limited by his injury, how long he will be limited in 

his activity, or how his back injury prevents him from performing his duties as a lawyer. 

Moreover, counsel does not explain why other attorneys in his firm cannot assist in this case. 

Because the parties have not demonstrated good cause or reasonable diligence, the Court 

DENIES the motion without prejudice. All dates, requirements, and guidelines remain as 

previously set. ECF Nos. 14 and 34. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 11/28/2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00534-LAB-BLM Document 37 Filed 11/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3