Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00962/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00962-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GEORGE GOLDIE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-00962-KJM-DB 

ORDER 

Plaintiff George Goldie filed a complaint in state court in April 2016, and the case 

was removed to this court the next month. Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. The court set an initial 

scheduling conference for September 15, 2016. ECF No. 4. The parties stipulated twice to extend 

the deadline for the defendants’ response to the complaint, the second time with the court’s 

consent. See Stip., ECF No. 8; Stip. & Proposed Order, ECF No. 10. No responsive pleading has 

been filed, and no scheduling order has been issued. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(2) requires the court to issue a scheduling 

order “as soon as practicable” and no later than ninety days after any defendant is served, unless 

“good cause” requires an extension. The Advisory Committee has signaled that “good cause” 

may exist if “the parties cannot prepare adequately for a meaningful Rule 26(f) conference” 

because the case involves “complex issues, multiple parties, and large organizations.” Fed. R. 

Case 2:16-cv-00962-KJM-DB Document 13 Filed 08/09/16 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 

2

Civ. P. 16 Advisory Comm. notes to 2015 Am. Otherwise, early intervention by the court and 

early, direct communication between the parties and the court is necessary to keep cases moving 

forward. See id.

Here, the parties explain they would like more time to exchange information and 

attempt to resolve the case without incurring the costs of litigation. See Stip. & Proposed Order, 

ECF No. 12. They have not identified any complexities or other difficulties that have prevented 

them from preparing adequately for a meaningful Rule 26(f) conference. The parties may both 

pursue their goal of early settlement and move the case forward on parallel tracks. 

The parties’ agreement that Caliber may have until September to answer the 

complaint is approved as modified to reflect an answer shall be due by September 15, 2016. The 

request to continue the status conference is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 9, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00962-KJM-DB Document 13 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 2