Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03820/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03820-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDRA KAY CABRERA,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-3820 PJH

v. NOTICE AND ORDER

ARAMARK SM MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

On September 21, 2006, the court held a case management conference in the

instant action, at which pretrial and case management deadlines were established. 

Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at the conference. Defendant’s counsel refused the

court’s offer to issue an order to show cause and requested instead that the court simply

enter a pretrial schedule, as plaintiff’s counsel did participate in the meet and confer and

agree to the jointly proposed schedule. The following day, the court issued a case

management and pretrial order memorializing the pretrial deadlines, and specifically

establishing July 11, 2007 as the last day for hearing of dispositive motions. It is clear from

subsequent activity reflected on the docket, that plaintiff’s counsel was aware of the court’s

order. In accordance with the pretrial order, defendant duly filed its motion for summary

judgment on June 1, 2007, noticed for hearing on July 11, 2007. Plaintiff, however, failed

to file an opposition brief, despite having had nearly nine months’ notice regarding the

pretrial schedule establishing the July 11th hearing date. 

After court staff brought plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition brief to the attention of

plaintiff’s counsel, plaintiff’s counsel submitted a brief letter that is now before the court,

indicating that defendant filed its motion for summary judgment “while [counsel] was on

Case 4:06-cv-03820-PJH Document 25 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

vacation, despite [counsel’s] notice to them that [counsel] would be unavailable for that time

period.” The letter then requests a 30 day continuance within which to file an opposition. 

Preliminarily, the court notes that, regardless whether plaintiff notified defense

counsel of his unavailability during the time that plaintiff’s opposition would need to be filed,

it was the responsibility of plaintiff’s counsel to request a continuance of his June 20, 2007

filing deadline, and to ensure that such request was ruled on by the court, prior to his

departure for vacation. This was particularly true, given that plaintiff’s counsel was well

aware of the pretrial deadlines in effect in this case, and was therefore also aware that any

continuance of the dispositive motion hearing date would require modification of the court’s

case management and pretrial order. Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to discharge his

responsibilities is, therefore, in no way excused by the notice of unavailability that he

purportedly served upon defense counsel. 

Moreover, the court notes that, in the notice of unavailability that plaintiff’s counsel

submitted along with his letter requesting a 30 day continuance, plaintiff’s counsel states

that he was unavailable from May 29, 2007 through June 11, 2007. However, plaintiff’s

opposition was not due until June 20, 2007, and plaintiff’s counsel therefore had ample

opportunity following his return to file an opposition brief. At the very least, he had ample

opportunity to request a continuance of the filing deadline before the deadline had passed. 

Instead, plaintiff’s counsel waited until June 28, 2007 to request an extension and only after

he was contacted by court staff about the missed deadline. 

 Moving on to the substance of plaintiff’s counsel’s request for a 30-day

continuance, the court first notes that the local rules provide two weeks within which to

oppose a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel provides no reason for a

request for twice the amount of time normally allowed. More significantly, however, the

court finds that good cause for the request is lacking. The request is governed by Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 16, since it would require a modification of both the

pretrial order issued in this case, and the court's standard practice of resolving dispositive

Case 4:06-cv-03820-PJH Document 25 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

motions prior to pretrial preparation, which commences 75 days before trial. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 16(b)(pursuant to FRCP 16, a party may not obtain modification of a pretrial

scheduling order "except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the district

judge."). To establish good cause, the party seeking modification must show that, despite

acting diligently, it cannot reasonably meet the order’s schedule. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)

advisory committee notes (1983 amendment). This note clearly contemplates that the

request for modification be made prior to the deadline sought to be modified. Here,

plaintiff’s counsel’s belated two paragraph letter nowhere sets forth any diligent or

reasonable efforts made by plaintiff’s counsel to meet the pretrial deadlines currently in

effect, nor even addresses the impact that a 30-day continuance would have on the current

pretrial schedule. As such, the court finds that good cause is lacking and the request for a

30-day continuance is therefore DENIED.

The hearing on defendant’s dispositive motion, currently set for July 11, 2007,

remains in place. Plaintiff’s counsel may appear at the hearing and be heard, if he so

chooses. However, no written submissions will be accepted by plaintiff’s counsel, as all

deadlines have passed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03820-PJH Document 25 Filed 07/02/07 Page 3 of 3