Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01441/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01441-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

15-CV-1441-L-WVG

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

CHRISTINA DORSEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-CV-1441-L-WVG

ORDER GRANTING JOINT 

MOTION TO CONTINUE MOTION 

CUT-OFF DATE FOR MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[ECF NO. 66]

BACKGROUND

On August 24, 2016, plaintiff Christina Dorsey (“Plaintiff”) and defendants City of 

San Diego, San Diego Police Department, Chief Shelley Zimmerman, Sergeant Cephas, 

Officer Ponce, Officer Esquer, Officer Hendee, Officer Anderson, and Officer St. Clair 

(collectively “Defendants”) filed a Joint Motion to Continue Expert Deposition Date for 

Jack Smith. ECF No. 63. On August 25, 2016, the Court denied the motion without 

prejudice. ECF No. 64. At 5:20 P.M. on August 25, 2016, the Court convened a 

telephonic status conference where the parties renewed their motion to extend fact 

discovery. The Court granted the motion upon a finding of good cause. ECF No. 65. On 

August 31, 2016 at 1:20 P.M., the parties filed a Joint Motion To Continue Motion CutOff Date For Motion For Summary Judgment To Accommodate Settlement Discussions

Case 3:15-cv-01441-L-WVG Document 67 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 4
2

15-CV-1441-L-WVG

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

(“Joint Motion”), requesting the Court to continue the motion cut-off date set for 

September 2, 2016 to October 7, 2016. ECF No. 66.

RULING

Based on the good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS the Joint Motion and 

continues the motion cut-off date for summary judgment to September 23, 2016.

Pursuant to FRCP 16(b)(3), a district court is required to enter a pretrial scheduling 

order that “must limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete 

discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). The scheduling order “controls 

the course of the action unless the court modifies it [ ]” and FRCP “16 is to be taken 

seriously.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d); Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 

1994). Indeed, parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to [the Court’s] schedule 

throughout the subsequent course of the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 

605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). “A scheduling order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly 

entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril.’” Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case 

Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Me. 1985)).

FRCP 16(b)(4) “provides that a district court’s scheduling order may be modified 

upon a showing of ‘good cause,’ an inquiry which focuses on the reasonable diligence of 

the moving party.” Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2007); citing 

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In Johnson, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal explained,

...Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily concerns the diligence of 

the party seeking the amendment. 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’s notes (1983 

amendment)...[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons 

for seeking modification...If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should 

end.

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

Case 3:15-cv-01441-L-WVG Document 67 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 4
3

15-CV-1441-L-WVG

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

In part, the “good cause” standard requires the parties to demonstrate that 

“noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding her 

diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could not have 

been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling 

conference...” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608.

In the August 24, 2016 Joint Motion to Continue Expert Deposition Date for Jack 

Smith, the parties made no mention to the Court of a potential settlement offer. See ECF 

No. 63. Further, the parties did not request an extension of the motion cut-off date. See id. 

On the August 25, 2016 telephonic status conference, again, the parties made no mention

to the Court of any potential settlement offer nor did the parties request an extension of the 

motion cut-off date. The parties were aware this date was looming as it has remained 

unchanged since the Court set the Scheduling Order on December 14, 2015. See ECF No. 

23 at 3. Defendants were made aware of Plaintiff’s settlement offer on August 26, 2016

yet the parties chose to wait until two days before the cut-off deadline to file a request to 

extend the deadline. See ECF No. 66 at 1. Based on the foregoing facts, the Court would 

be justified in denying the request with prejudice.

However, the Court finds there is good cause to continue the deadline solely because 

the parties have represented to the Court they “believe there is a genuine prospect that the 

parties can reach an informal settlement of the matter based upon Plaintiff’s latest 

demand.” Id. at 2. The parties have represented to the Court that Defendants will brief the 

San Diego City Council on September 20, 2016. Id. at 2. Given this, the Court finds that 

good cause does not exist to extend the motion cut-off date to October 7, 2016. Should the 

City Council approve the settlement offer, it is likely no motion for summary judgment 

will be required. Should the City Council reject the settlement offer, the Court is confident 

the parties will be able to complete any motions by the continued deadline.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-01441-L-WVG Document 67 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 4
4

15-CV-1441-L-WVG

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

Finding good cause, the Court grants the Joint Motion. The motion cut-off date for 

summary judgment only is hereby continued to September 23, 2016. No further requests 

for extension will be entertained by the Court. All other dates are unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01441-L-WVG Document 67 Filed 09/02/16 Page 4 of 4