Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01350/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01350-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LONNIE CRAIG PATTERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF YUBA CITY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-CV-01350-MCE-CKD 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

Plaintiff Lonnie Craig Patterson (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Defendants 

City of Yuba City and Police Chief Robert D. Landon. Defendant Landon was 

subsequently dismissed on the joint request of the parties. ECF No. 19. Presently 

before the Court is a Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (ECF No. 30), by which 

Defendant City of Yuba City (“Defendant”) seeks an extension of time in which to have 

its Motion for Summary Judgment heard. For the following reasons, that Motion is 

GRANTED.1

 

Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)2

 requires the Court to enter a 

pretrial scheduling order within 90 days of the serving of the complaint. The scheduling 

 1

 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 

submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g). 

2

 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless 

otherwise noted. 

Case 2:12-cv-01350-MCE-CKD Document 35 Filed 01/21/16 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 

2 

order “controls the course of the action” unless modified by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(d). Orders entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified upon a 

showing of “good cause,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); see also Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Because a Pretrial Scheduling Order 

(“PTSO”) was issued in this matter on November 18, 2014 (ECF No. 12), the Court must 

consider whether Defendant has shown the requisite “good cause” to deviate from the 

PTSO under Rule 16(b). 

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

seeking the amendment. Johnson, 975 F.2d 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); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding 

of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

“Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification 

might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the 

moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. If the moving party was not 

diligent, the Court’s inquiry should end. Id. 

Defendant contends that modification of the PTSO is justified because the current 

order “provides that all dispositive motions be filed by November 12, 2015, and be heard 

by January 7, 2016.” Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 30-1, at 2. According to Defendant, it filed its 

Motion for Summary Judgment on November 12, but it failed to verify prior to this date 

whether January 7, 2016, was an available hearing date for the Court.3

 Id. at 2. As it 

turns out, that date was not available, as is oft the case in a direct-calendar court, and 

 3

 The Court’s PTSO does not indicate that the dispositive motion deadline is a guaranteed hearing 

date. Instead, it directs parties to the Court’s website to locate available hearing dates. PTSO at 4. The 

Court specifically does not provide concrete hearing dates in the PTSO as so much can change between 

issuing of the scheduling order and the time for filing dispositive motions. That said, the 2016 civil law and 

motion dates were set and published in plenty of time for Defendant to have verified that January 7, 2016, 

was not available and to have noticed its motion for December 17, 2015. 

Case 2:12-cv-01350-MCE-CKD Document 35 Filed 01/21/16 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 

the earliest available civil law and motion date in 2016, was January 14.4

 Accordingly, 

Defendant needed to notice its Motion for Summary Judgment for hearing on the last law 

and motion date in 2015, which was December 17, in order to meet the PTSO’s hearing 

deadline. Once Defendant realized its predicament, however, there was not sufficient 

time in which to notice the summary judgment motion in advance of that December date. 

Accordingly, Defendant filed the instant Motion seeking to extend the dispositive motion 

deadline in the PTSO. 

Plaintiff, of course, opposes Defendant’s request, arguing that Defendant was not 

diligent in researching the Court’s available deadlines and properly noticing its 

dispositive motion. Pl.’s Opp., ECF No. 32, at 4. Plaintiff further contends he will be 

prejudiced if Defendant’s current Motion is granted because Plaintiff’s own previous 

request to amend the Complaint, which was governed by the same standard applicable 

here, was denied. See ECF Nos. 16, 24. According to Plaintiff, “[h]olding Plaintiff to the 

deadline but allowing Defendant leeway is prejudicial to Plaintiff.” Pl.’s Opp. at 5. 

Neither of these arguments is persuasive. 

First, whether Defendant could possibly have avoided the predicament it 

ultimately found itself in, its reliance on the January 7, 2016, date in the PTSO, although 

erroneous, was understandable. The Court can understand how Defendant would have 

calendared the January 7, 2016, date as a firm hearing date given the complex 

calendaring systems employed by various firms and individuals, not to mention the 

disparate rules that govern parties in different courts. Although Defendant should have 

realized that date might not be available, and followed the directive in the PTSO to check 

the Court’s website for the Court’s actual law and motion dates, the Court finds that the 

 4

 The Court notes that Defendant appears to be under the misconception that by the time the 

motion for summary judgment was filed, the Court’s calendar was “full.” That is not the case. As 

previously indicated, the Court had already determined (in plenty of time that defense counsel could have 

prepared and filed a motion for hearing on December 17) that the only civil law and motion dates in 

January 2016 would be on the 14th and the 28th. The Court mentions this again not to beat a dead horse, 

but because defense counsel often practices before this Court, and ideally counsel will know going forward 

to check for available dates rather than to rely on the deadline for hearing dispositive motions as a 

guaranteed hearing date. 

Case 2:12-cv-01350-MCE-CKD Document 35 Filed 01/21/16 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 

error in this case is excusable, especially given Defendant’s otherwise diligent efforts in 

trying to meet the deadlines set forth in the Court’s Order. Moreover, as soon as 

Defendant realized its calendaring error, it undertook immediate efforts, culminating in 

the filing of this Motion, to rectify that issue. Accordingly, Defendant has demonstrated 

the requisite diligence to persuade the Court to modify the PTSO. 

Second, the fact that Plaintiff’s own prior request to amend the Complaint was 

denied is irrelevant to the instant Motion before the Court. The Court decided Plaintiff’s 

request on the facts before it. The facts presented by the current motion, however, are 

entirely different, one motion having nothing to do with the other. The Court would be 

derelict in its duties if it resorted to deciding motions on a “tit for tat” basis. 

Finally, because Defendant’s Motion is potentially dispositive of this action, it 

behooves both the Court and the parties to have it heard. Should the legal issues raised 

dispose of this case, the time and expense of trial can be saved. Should the Motion for 

Summary Judgment be denied, at the very least the issues for trial have been narrowed. 

For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order (ECF 

No. 30) is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) shall 

be set for hearing on March 24, 2016. Plaintiff’s opposition and any cross-motion shall 

be filed not later than February 18, 2016. Defendant’s reply and any opposition to any 

cross-motion shall be filed not later than March 3, 2016. Any reply to any cross-motion 

shall be filed not later than March 17, 2016. The March 17, 2016, Final Pretrial 

Conference, the May 2, 2016, Jury Trial, and all deadlines for filing pretrial documents 

are VACATED and will be reset, if needed, after the issuance of the Court's ruling on the 

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 20, 2016 

4

Case 2:12-cv-01350-MCE-CKD Document 35 Filed 01/21/16 Page 4 of 4