Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00991/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00991-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CUEVAS v. UNITED BRANDS CO. Case No. 11cv0991 BTM(RBB)

Time Spent: 

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS CT. DEPUTY VICKY LEE Rptr. 

Attorneys

Plaintiffs Defendants

Alan Mansfield Linda Northrup 

Patrick Sheehan Houston Watson 

Ben Lopatin Spencer Skeen 

PROCEEDINGS: In Chambers In Court Telephonic

On December 3, 2012, Plaintiff and Defendant filed a Joint Motion to Extend

Deadlines in Case Management Conference Order Regulating Discovery and Other

Pretrial Proceedings [ECF No. 92]. In their Joint Motion, the parties

acknowledge that the Court recently, on August 3, 2012, held a case

management conference and issued an order setting deadlines for discovery,

motion practice, and other pretrial proceedings. (Jt. Mot. Extend Deadlines

2, ECF No. 92.) Rather than pursue discovery, "the Parties have been

attempting to negotiate a settlement of this ligation . . . the Parties have

neither formally produced information pursuant to their outstanding discovery

requests nor sought judicial intervention to resolve their existing discovery

disputes . . . ." (Id.) At least as early as November 9, 2012, counsel for

both sides understood that a disagreement existed over whether class notice

was required to settle this matter and the scope of any notice. (Id.) That

impasse continues. As a result, the parties have filed this Joint Motion.

Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that "a [case

management] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's

consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). "The pretrial schedule may be modified 'if

it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

extension.'" Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.

2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th

Cir. 1992)). "If the party seeking the modification 'was not diligent, the

inquiry should end' . . . ." Id.

Here, the parties have not demonstrated continued diligence or even diligence

since November 9th, when the apparent disagreement was apparent. Most

deadlines in the Case Management Conference Order are not imminent. Counsel

have not demonstrated that with diligence they cannot be met. The only

possible exception is the deadline for filing a motion to certify the class. 

"Furthermore, mere stipulations by the parties do not constitute good cause

for modification of a scheduling order." 3 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's

Federal Practice § 16.15[1][c], at 16-76 (3d ed. 2012) (footnote omitted).

Case 3:11-cv-00991-BTM-RBB Document 93 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 2
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to Extend the deadline

for filing the class certification motion thirty days to February 11, 2013. 

In all other respects, the Joint Motion [ECF No. 92] is DENIED.

DATE: December 11, 2012 IT IS SO ORDERED: _________________________

Ruben B. Brooks, 

U.S. Magistrate Judge 

cc: Judge Moskowitz INITIALS: VL (mg) Deputy

 All Parties of Record

I:\Chambers Brooks\CASES\CUEVAS0991\Minute11.wpd

Case 3:11-cv-00991-BTM-RBB Document 93 Filed 12/11/12 Page 2 of 2