Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02148/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02148-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Richard Bartleman, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Sheraton Operating Corporation, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-02148-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 The parties have moved the Court for an order “continuing the Discovery and 

Dispositive Motion Deadlines as established in the Court’s Order dated December 10, 

2012 [Dkt. 77] by 60 days.” (Doc. 119). The December 10 Order set October 1, 2013 as 

the discovery cut-off and November 1, 2013 as the dispositive motion deadline. 

Therefore, the motion filed on October 7, 2013 is in reality one to reopen discovery and 

extend the dispositive motion deadline. 

 In filing this motion the parties acknowledge ignoring the Court’s Order of 

December 10, 2012 which set the deadlines and which, in bold print, stated: “Due to the 

age of this case, there will be NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS of these deadlines.” (Doc. 

77). The parties were aware a full nine months before filing the instant motion that they 

were facing a non-extendable deadline. 

 Furthermore, the parties have ignored the express admonition in the Court’s 

Standard Track Order filed November 1, 2011 stating “it is the practice of this Court to 

not extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline beyond the two-year anniversary of the 

Case 2:11-cv-02148-JAT Document 120 Filed 10/08/13 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

case being filed in or removed to Federal Court, nor to allow the Discovery Cut-Off 

to extend beyond 30 days before the Dispositive Motion Deadline.” (Doc. 6). This 

admonition is repeated at the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference. 

 Finally, the parties have failed to show good cause under Rule 16(b)(4). While 

mediation is commendable, it is not a reason in this Court to extend the deadlines and 

especially given these deadlines and the age of this case. 

NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED denying the Parties’ Stipulation to 

Continue Remaining Deadlines (Doc. 119). 

 DATED this 8th day of October, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-02148-JAT Document 120 Filed 10/08/13 Page 2 of 2