Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00418/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00418-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME REYES JR. Deceased, 

THROUGH HIS SUCESSORS IN 

INTEREST MIRELLA REYES and 

JAIME REYES SR.; MIRELLA REYES, 

Individually; and JAIME REYES SR., 

Individually,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF FRESNO, a public entity, CITY 

OF FRESNO POLICE CHIEF JERRY 

DYER in his individual and official 

capacities, and DOES 1 through 10, 

Jointly and Severally,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:13-CV-00418-LJO-SKO

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED 

REQUEST TO MODIFY THE 

SCHEDULE

On August 12, 2014, the parties filed a stipulated request that the schedule be modified due 

to the recent substitution of Bruce Praet, Esq., as counsel for Defendants City of Fresno, Police 

Chief Jerry Dyer, and Officer Miguel Alvarez. The parties also note that Defendant Avila's 

disability status remains unknown and unresolved. Mr. Praet indicates he requires additional time 

to familiarize himself with the case, and he has conflicts with the currently set trial date.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a case management "[s]chedule may 

be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Rule 16(b)'s good cause standard 

Case 1:13-cv-00418-DAD-SKO Document 55 Filed 08/18/14 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

primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). 

The parties have not established good cause to modify the schedule. A party's substitution 

of new counsel does not constitute good cause for a schedule modification, particularly a 

modification to the pretrial and trial dates. See Tapia v. Woods, No. 1:13-cv-05422-LJO-SMS, 

2007 WL 3047106, at * 2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2007). Additionally, the parties offer no explanation 

regarding Defendant Avila's continued unavailability due to unexplained medical issues. The 

schedule in this matter has already been modified to accommodate Defendant Avila's 

unavailability, and the parties provide no update as to his condition. It is unclear why a twomonth schedule modification would address this issue – especially in light of the fact that the 

parties represent that Defendant Avila's deposition, along with several others, will be taken prior 

to October 31, 2014. As such, the parties have not met their burden to show good cause for a 

modification of nearly all scheduling deadlines, including the pretrial conference and trial dates. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' stipulated request to modify the 

schedule is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00418-DAD-SKO Document 55 Filed 08/18/14 Page 2 of 2