Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00465/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00465-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

LISSETTE MUNOZ, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY OF DALY CITY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: 19-cv-00465 SBA 

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION 

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND 

PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Dkt. 49 

On February 21, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the trial date and 

pre-trial deadlines. Dkt. 49. Once entered, a scheduling order “may be modified only for 

good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The parties state that 

an “attached declaration of counsel sets forth the asserted good cause for the stipulation.” 

Dkt. 49 at 3. However, no declaration is attached, and the stipulation itself fails to set forth 

good cause to modify the pretrial schedule. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 

1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (“good cause” may be shown where pretrial deadlines cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the those seeking the extension). Accordingly, 

the parties’ stipulation is DENIED without prejudice to the re-filing of a stipulation that 

sets forth the requisite good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 02/24/20 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

Senior United States District Judge 

Case 4:19-cv-00465-SBA Document 50 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 1