Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00176/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00176-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NESTLÉ USA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CLARK, LAW OFFICES OF 

MARK S. NELSON,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00176-LJO-BAM

ORDER VACATING HEARING 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF NESTLE 

USA, INC.’S AND DEFENDANTS 

MATTHEW CLARK AND LAW OFFICES 

OF MARK S. NELSON’S JOINT MOTION 

FOR AN EXTENSION OF DISPOSITIVE 

MOTION DEADLINE AND PRE-TRIAL 

CONFERENCE

(Doc. 23)

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Nestlé USA, Inc. and Defendants Matthew 

Clark and the Law Offices of Mark S. Nelson (collectively, the “Parties”) joint motion for an 

order (1) extending the deadline for the filing of any dispositive motions from January 24, 2020 to 

March 24, 2020; and (2) extending the date of the pretrial conference from April 21, 2020 to May 

21, 2020. (Doc. No. 23.) The Court finds the matter suitable for decision without oral argument 

and the hearing currently set for February 21, 2020, is HEREBY VACATED. The motion is 

deemed submitted.1 Local Rule 230(g). 

 

1 The Court notes that because the motion was submitted jointly and no party opposes the 

motion, the parties could have submitted the matter as stipulation to continue the relevant 

Case 1:19-cv-00176-NONE-BAM Document 24 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 3
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

2

I. Background

This action was initiated on February 8, 2019. (Doc. No. 1.) On August 1, 2019, the 

Court issued a Scheduling Order which, in relevant part, set a deadline of January 24, 2020, for 

dispositive motions, a date of April 21, 2020, for the pretrial conference, and a date of June 23, 

2020, for trial. (Doc. No. 17.) 

On January 23, 20202, the parties filed the instant joint motion. According to the moving 

papers, since the entry of the Scheduling Order the parties have conducted written discovery and 

Defendants have been allowed several extensions of time in which to respond to discovery due to 

difficulties obtaining relevant documents on the status of the disputed settlement funds over 

which Plaintiff seeks to impose an equitable lien. Defendants reportedly produced a significant 

volume of documentation in mid-November 2019, including bank account statements. Following 

this production, the parties have been in discussions regarding the responses, potential 

supplementation of those responses and potential resolution of this matter. (Doc. No. 23 at 3.) 

The parties represent that in order to facilitate resolution of this matter, they request a brief 

extension of the disposition and pretrial conference deadlines “to avoid incurring additional 

attorney’s fees and costs which may impede settlement discussions.” (Id. at 3.) The parties also 

aver that additional time will allow them to narrow the potential trial issues. (Id.)

II. Discussion

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 

with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 

not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 

Generally, settlement discussions do not constitute good cause justifying modification of 

the pretrial Scheduling Order. See, e.g., Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pacific Co., No. 11-cv-

 

deadlines in the Scheduling Order. 

Case 1:19-cv-00176-NONE-BAM Document 24 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 3
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

01273-LJO-BAM, 2013 WL 1164941, * 4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013). However, in this instance, 

the Court recognizes that discovery documents were not provided until mid-November 2019, and 

supplemental discovery responses may be necessary to clarify the status of the disputed funds. 

The Court therefore will permit the modification requested by the parties. 

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court, having read and considered all of the supporting papers submitted by counsel, 

and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion is 

GRANTED;

2. The January 24, 2020 deadline for the parties to file any pretrial motions, including 

any dispositive motions, is continued to March 24, 2020;

3. The Pretrial Conference for this matter is continued from April 21, 2020 to May 21, 

2020;

4. Trial in this action remains set for June 23, 2020. However, as the parties previously 

were informed, Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill will not be available to conduct the pretrial 

conference and trial in this matter due to his impending retirement. The parties also 

have been informed that it is uncertain who the trial judge will be and if and when the 

case may proceed to trial; and

5. The parties are cautioned that further modification of the Scheduling Order must be 

supported by a demonstrated showing of good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00176-NONE-BAM Document 24 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 3