Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00661/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00661-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

1

18cv661-JAH-MDD

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

JAYSON FRANCIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-0661-JAH-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 

AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

[ECF NO. 22]

This case, removed to this Court on April 2, 2018, alleges that the 

Defendant failed to comply with its warranty obligations regarding an 

automobile. (ECF No. 1). An Early Neutral Evaluation/Case Management 

Conference was held on June 27, 2018, and a Scheduling Order issued on 

June 28, 2018. (ECF No. 9). The Scheduling Order provided for a discovery 

deadline of November 30, 2018, allowing for five months of discovery in this 

rather straightforward case. (Id.).

On September 21, 2018, the parties moved to amend the Scheduling 

Order, extending all deadlines for 45 days, due to issues in scheduling 

depositions. (ECF No. 10). The Court granted the motion and issued a First 

Case 3:18-cv-00661-JAH-MDD Document 23 Filed 06/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv661-JAH-MDD

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

Amended Scheduling Order providing for a discovery deadline of January 14, 

2019. (ECF No. 11).

On November 8, 2018, Defendant sought an extension of all deadlines 

for another 90 days due to the unexpected illness of its expert. (ECF No. 12). 

Plaintiff expressly did not oppose. (ECF No. 14). The Court granted the 

request and issued a Second Amended Scheduling Order providing for a 

discovery deadline of April 5, 2019. (ECF No. 15).

The parties now seek an additional, unspecified extension of time based 

upon Defendant’s decision not take Plaintiff’s expert deposition until after 

the mandatory settlement conference. The mandatory settlement conference 

had been scheduled for April 25, 2019, almost three weeks after the close of 

discovery. (ECF No. 15). On April 22, 2019, the parties moved to continue 

the settlement conference because Plaintiff’s counsel had a scheduling 

conflict. (ECF No. 17). The motion was granted, and the settlement 

conference continued to June 3, 2019. (ECF No. 18). On May 28, 2019, the 

Court rescheduled the settlement conference from June 3, 2019, to July 25, 

2019, due to a conflict. (ECF No. 19). The parties rely on the rescheduling of 

the settlement conference to support their request to reopen discovery. 

Discovery has been closed since April 4, 2019. Discovery closed weeks 

before the parties sought a continuance of the April 25, 2019 settlement 

conference and no mention was made in the joint motion to continue the 

settlement conference of any pending discovery needs or issues. (ECF No. 

17). The decision not to complete discovery, based upon a settlement 

conference set for after the close of discovery, without seeking leave of Court, 

was not well-considered. 

Case 3:18-cv-00661-JAH-MDD Document 23 Filed 06/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv661-JAH-MDD

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

Modification of the scheduling order, under Rule 16(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. 

P., requires good cause. The standard for good cause under this Rule 

primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the modification. See 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Here, the parties have not been diligent and there is no good cause. The 

Scheduling Order will not be amended. Discovery remains closed. The Joint 

Motion to Amend the Schedule is DENIED. 

The mandatory settlement conference, scheduled for July 25, 2019, is 

VACATED. The Court will not indulge these parties, considering their lack 

of diligence, in a court-supported settlement conference. The parties are free 

to engage in private mediation. The Court strongly urges the parties to take 

heed of and comply with the pretrial requirements of the operative 

Scheduling Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00661-JAH-MDD Document 23 Filed 06/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3