Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01349/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01349-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

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- 

CONSENT MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY DEADLINES; ORDER 

Benjamin K. Mason (State Bar No. 289066) 

Daniel J. Ban (State Bar No. 172521) 

MORLEY MASON, PLC 

2600 W. Geronimo Pl., Ste. 100 

Chandler, AZ 85224 

Telephone: 480.320.1254 

Facsimile: 480.505.0926 

ben@morleymason.com 

dban@morleymason.com 

Attorneys for Amazing Insurance, Inc. 

and Third-Party Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AMAZING INSURANCE, INC, a Georgia 

corporation, 

 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, 

v. 

MICHAEL A. DiMANNO, an individual, 

and ACCUIRE, LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company, 

 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs. 

__________________________________ 

MICHAEL A. DiMANNO, an individual, 

and ACCUIRE, LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company, 

Counterclaim Plaintiffs, 

v. 

VIKASH JAIN, an individual, GERALD 

DOUGLAS ANDERTON, an individual, 

KARA CHILDRESS, an individual, and 

ALEX CAMPOS, an individual, 

Third-Party Defendants. 

Case No. 2:19-cv-01349-TLN-CKD 

CONSENT MOTION TO MODIFY 

DISCOVERY DEADLINES; 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Amazing Insurance, Inc. and Third-Party Defendants (collectively, in this 

Case 2:19-cv-01349-DAD-CKD Document 99 Filed 12/08/21 Page 1 of 5
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- 

CONSENT MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY DEADLINES; ORDER 

document, “Plaintiff”) file the following Consent Motion to Modify Discovery Deadlines: 

INTRODUCTION 

 The parties’ efforts to complete discovery in this case have become much more fruitful over 

the last several weeks and months, but unfortunately require short extension of the current deadlines 

in order to be completed. Defendants consent to the relief sought herein. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 The Court entered an Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order on July 18, 2019 (the “Pretrial 

Order”). ECF No. 3. The Pretrial Order set a number of discovery deadlines, keyed off trial dates 

and Answer dates. Id. On January 31, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Status Report providing for 

different discovery deadlines. ECF No. 33. The Court did not adopt or agree to these deadlines; 

therefore, the governing deadlines were those from the Pretrial Order. The Court then issued ECF 

No. 43 which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On December 30, 2020, in response to a 

Joint Motion to Extend Time to Complete Discovery, the Court issued ECF No. 78, which set new 

discovery deadlines in this matter. On March 1, 2021, the parties consented to a further extension 

of discovery deadlines, after which the Court then issued ECF No. 81. On March 31, 2021, the 

court issued ECF No. 83 which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On May 10, 2021, the 

court issued ECF No. 85 which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On June 25, 2021, the 

parties consented to a further extension of discovery deadlines, after which the Court issued ECF 

No. 89, which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On August 26, 2021, the parties consented 

to a further extension of discovery deadlines, after which the Court issues ECF No. 93, which set 

new discovery deadlines in this matter. On November 2, 2021, the parties consented to a further 

extension of discovery deadlines, after which the Court issues ECF No. 95, which set new discovery 

deadlines in this matter. 

STANDARD OF LAW 

 This Court has broad discretion to amend to govern the pretrial phase of litigation before it, 

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, and its 

decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order . . . will not be disturbed unless they 

Case 2:19-cv-01349-DAD-CKD Document 99 Filed 12/08/21 Page 2 of 5
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- 

CONSENT MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY DEADLINES; ORDER 

evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 

(9th Cir. 1992) (citing Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co.,758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). As stated 

by the Court itself, and by case law, the Court can modify its pretrial order on a showing of good 

cause, “A pretrial order controls the subsequent course of the action unless modified `upon a 

showing of good cause.'“ Amerisourcebergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1135 n. 

1 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing ElHakem v. BJY Inc.,415 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir.2005); Zivkovic v. S. 

Cal. Edison Co.,302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)), petition for cert. filed, 74 U.S.L.W. 3407 

(U.S. Oct. 19, 2005) (No. 05-84); see also Arsement v. Spinnaker Exploration Co.,400 F.3d 238, 

245 (5th Cir.2005) (“It goes without saying that a pre-trial order controls the scope and course of 

trial.. . .”). 

ARGUMENT 

 The parties have exchanged discovery responses, and further supplemental responses are 

expected. Many of the expected nine (or more) contemplated depositions have been completed, and 

the parties are actively communicating through counsel and working to accommodate the taking of 

said depositions. However, Plaintiff’s/Third-Party Defendants’ counsel has recently been severely 

ill with a non-Covid viral illness, which put him out of the office for more than a week and which 

continues to trouble him. This illness, in combination with an upcoming trial by Defendants’ 

counsel, and with the Christmas holidays, make it almost impossible for the parties to complete 

discovery by the currently deadlines. 

 Based on this, Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants, and Defendants, each through counsel, 

have agreed that the parties would request an extension of deadlines. Plaintiff therefore respectfully 

asks the Court to modify the discovery deadlines as follows: 

Deadline ECF No. 95 New Deadline 

Requested by Parties 

Discovery December 31, 2021 March 31, 2022 

Initial Expert Disclosures February 28, 2022 May 31, 2022 

Supplemental Expert 

Disclosures 

March 28, 2022 June 30, 2022 

Dispositive Motions May 16, 2022 August 15, 2022 

Case 2:19-cv-01349-DAD-CKD Document 99 Filed 12/08/21 Page 3 of 5
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- 

CONSENT MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY DEADLINES; ORDER 

CONCLUSION 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court grant the relief detailed above, as to which all 

parties consent. 

DATED this 6th day of December, 2021. 

 MORLEY MASON, PLC 

 By: /s/ Benjamin K Mason 

 Benjamin K. Mason 

 MORLEY MASON, PLC 

 Attorneys for Amazing Insurance, Inc. and 

 All Third-Party Defendants 

Case 2:19-cv-01349-DAD-CKD Document 99 Filed 12/08/21 Page 4 of 5
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 

 

 

-5- 

CONSENT MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY DEADLINES; ORDER 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL 

 I certify that, on December 3, 2021, and again on December 6, 2021, I communicated with 

John Shoreman, counsel for Defendants, wherein Mr. Shoreman represented to me that Defendants 

do not oppose the relief sought. Mr. Shoreman confirmed his approval of this filing via text message 

to me on December 6, 2021. 

 

 By: /s/ Benjamin K Mason 

 Benjamin K Mason 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: December 7, 2021 

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-01349-DAD-CKD Document 99 Filed 12/08/21 Page 5 of 5