Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00158/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00158-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

(continued...)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD KEMPER and BRANDY

GILLMORE,

2:05-cv-00158-MCE-DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SIERRA TOWING, et al., 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On April 11, 2007, Edward Kemper and Brandy Gillmore

(“Plaintiffs”) moved for modification of the May 9, 2005,

Pretrial Scheduling Order (“PTSO”). Plaintiffs seek this

modification on the ground that ongoing settlement efforts have

interfered with timely compliance of the PTSO. No opposition has

been filed. As explained below, the Court does not find

sufficient cause to warrant amendment of the PTSO. Accordingly,

Plaintiffs’ Motion is denied.1

Case 2:05-cv-00158-MCE -DAD Document 62 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 4
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

(...continued) 1

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

BACKGROUND

On January 25, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against

Defendant Sierra Towing alleging certain violations of the

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1211 et seq., as

well as violations of other state laws. On May 9, 2005, the

Court issued its PTSO in this matter which provides, in pertinent

part, that dispositive motions are to be filed no later than

April 3, 2006, and trial is to commence July 16, 2007.

On May 4, 2006, Plaintiffs and Defendants appeared for a

settlement conference before the Honorable Judge Dale A. Drozd. 

That conference did not result in settlement. According to

Plaintiffs, Defendants’ lack of insurance directly precluded

successful resolution of the case. Concurrently with settlement

negotiations, the Parties filed stipulated Motions to extend the

pre-trial and trial dates. In response to those Motions and on

its own Motion, the Court granted extensions of the trial date. 

However, neither Party has requested nor has the Court elected to

extend the dispositive motion deadline.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00158-MCE -DAD Document 62 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 4
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

STANDARD

Generally, the Court is required to enter a PTSO within 120

days of the filing of a complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The

scheduling order “controls the subsequent course of the action”

unless modified by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). Orders

entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified upon

a showing of “good cause,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), but orders

“following a final pretrial conference shall be modified only to

prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); see also

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir.

1992).

Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the

diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Id. at 609. 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). Id.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs’ argue that settlement negotiations beyond the

dispositive motion deadline precluded them from preparing and

filing a timely Summary Judgment Motion. Defendants have not

filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion nor have they filed a

Statement of Non-Opposition. Nonetheless, the Court must assess

the propriety of Plaintiffs’ request.

///

Case 2:05-cv-00158-MCE -DAD Document 62 Filed 06/01/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

As an initial matter, settlement negotiations can hardly be

said to be so involved and proximate to the matter’s resolution

as to prevent Plaintiffs from concurrently pursuing other legal

aspects of the case. In addition, Plaintiffs do not assert that

the settlement attempts alone motivated their delay in filing

timely dispositive motions in this matter. Rather, Plaintiffs

merely cite to the many failed settlement attempts as evidence of

their diligence in complying with the PTSO. Given that

Plaintiffs could have pursued all legal avenues in this matter

concurrently with pursuing settlement, the Court does not find

sufficient cause to warrant modification of the PTSO.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend

the Pretrial Scheduling Order denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00158-MCE -DAD Document 62 Filed 06/01/07 Page 4 of 4