Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00078/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00078-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY No. 2:06-cv-0078-MCE-GGH

OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf

of the University of 

California-Davis Medical

Center,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

TRUSTMARK INSURANCE

COMPANIES, and Does 1 

through 25,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

 On March 28, 2007, Counsel for Defendant Trustmark Insurance

Company (“Trustmark”) filed an Ex Parte Request that the Court

extend the time for hearing dispositive motions in this matter

from April 23, 2007 to April 30, 2007. Trustmark’s application

indicates simply that it filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on

March 23, 2007, the very last day it could do so and provide

adequate notice under the provisions of Eastern District Local

Rule 78-230(b). 

Case 2:06-cv-00078-MCE -GGH Document 24 Filed 04/05/07 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

 Unless otherwise stated, all references to “Rule” or 1

“Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

Trustmark did not, however, ascertain whether the April 23, 2007

date it selected was a scheduled motion hearing date. That date

was in fact unavailable and the next available hearing date,

April 30, 2007, fell outside the dispositive hearing cut-off

date, thereby necessitating the instant request.

Trustmark provided no explanation as to why it failed to

file its motion so that it could be heard before the applicable

deadline. 

Once a district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, that Rule’s 1

standards control. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Prior to the final pretrial

conference, which the Court has set for July 23, 2007, a court

may modify a status order upon a showing of “good cause.” See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

 “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses

on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment

and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good

cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In explaining

this standard, the Ninth Circuit has stated that:

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00078-MCE -GGH Document 24 Filed 04/05/07 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

[a] district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it

cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party

seeking the extension.’ Moreover, carelessness is not

compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason

for granting of relief. 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. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry

should end.

Id. (citations omitted).

Here, in the absence of any showing of diligence in not

getting the motion at issue on file sooner, Trustmark’s extension

request is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00078-MCE -GGH Document 24 Filed 04/05/07 Page 3 of 3