Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01555/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01555-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory 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

- 1 - 10cv1555

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC and

LEHMAN BROTHERS BANK, FSB, n/k/a

AURORA BANK FSB

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10CV1555 JLS (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO MODIFY

SCHEDULING ORDER TO

ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO FILE

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 29)

vs.

DENNIS RANDALL GRAY,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Aurora Loan Services, LLC and Lehman Brothers

Bank, FSB, n/k/a Aurora Bank FSB’s motion for leave to modify scheduling order to allow

Plaintiffs to file motion for summary judgment. (Mot. for Leave, ECF No. 29) Also before the

Court are Defendant Dennis Randall Gray’s (“Defendant”) response in opposition, (Resp. in

Opp’n, ECF No. 33), and Plaintiffs’ reply in support, (Reply in Supp., ECF No. 35). The motion

hearing set for April 26, 2012, is HEREBY VACATED, and the matter is taken under submission

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Having considered the parties’

arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion, with reservations.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 requires that any party seeking to modify a scheduling

order show “good cause” for why the Court should set aside or extend a deadline. Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b)(4). “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)

Case 3:10-cv-01555-JLS-BLM Document 36 Filed 03/14/12 Page 1 of 3
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 - 10cv1555

(citing, inter alia, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment) (“[T]he court

may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be met despite the

diligence of the party seeking the extension.”)); see also Kuschner v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 256

F.R.D. 684, 687 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (“Good cause may be found to exist where the moving party

shows . . . that it was diligent in seeking an amendment once it became apparent that the party

could not comply with the scheduling order.”). “If the party seeking the modification ‘was not

diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. S.

Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 

Here, Plaintiffs seek to extend the December 30, 2011, pretrial motion cutoff date in order

to file a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ only justification for the delay in filing is their

“belief that this matter could be resolved at the settlement conference on January 5, 2012.” (Mot.

for Leave 2, ECF No. 29) This excuse does not amount to good cause, however. The date of the

settlement conference was set at the same time as the pretrial motion deadline, (Scheduling Order,

ECF No. 21), and nothing precluded Plaintiffs from requesting a modification of the scheduling

order before the deadline had passed. 

Plaintiffs assert that there is good cause for the extension of time “because the motion is

likely to resolve this case without the need for trial.” (Mot. for Leave 3, ECF No. 29) While the

Court agrees that it is in the interests of judicial economy to consider Plaintiffs’ motion for

summary judgment prior to setting this matter for trial, the fact that this case may be resolved on

summary judgment does not speak to the relevant good cause inquiry here—namely, Plaintiffs’

diligence. Nevertheless, because Plaintiffs promptly sought leave to file their belated motion after

the case failed to settle, and because it is more efficient to narrow the issues before trial via a

motion for summary judgment, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs are advised,

however, that any future failures to comply with Magistrate Judge Major’s or this Court’s Orders

may result in sanctions. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment—which is

attached as Exhibit A to the instant motion—be filed. The Court HEREBY SETS the hearing

date on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment for Thursday, May 31, 2012, at 1:30pm. 

Case 3:10-cv-01555-JLS-BLM Document 36 Filed 03/14/12 Page 2 of 3
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 - 10cv1555

Defendant SHALL FILE an opposition on or before April 19, 2012. Plaintiffs, if they wish,

SHALL FILE a reply on or before April 26, 2012. The April 26, 2012, Pretrial Conference is

HEREBY VACATED and will be reset, if necessary, after the Court issues an Order on

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 14, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01555-JLS-BLM Document 36 Filed 03/14/12 Page 3 of 3