Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01201/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01201-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA GALLOWAY, )

) 2:05-cv-1201-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) REJECTION OF STIPULATION

) TO MODIFY RULE 16 

CSD, a.k.a. Communication ) SCHEDULING ORDER

Service for the Deaf, Inc., )

a South Dakota Corporation, )

)

Defendant. ) 

)

On February 23, 2006, the parties filed a Stipulation in

which Plaintiff mistakenly concludes that each time a party decides

to change lawyers, the Rule 16 scheduling order must be amended to

accommodate the schedule of new counsel. Plaintiff and her new

attorney should have been mindful of the deadlines prescribed in

the Rule 16 Scheduling Order before change of counsel occurred. 

See Matrix Motor Co., Inc. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, 218

F.R.D. 667, 676 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (imputing responsibility of being

aware of Rule 16 Scheduling Order dates to the plaintiff as well as

counsel); cf. Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez, 140 F.3d 312, 315 (1st Cir.

1998) (stating “litigants have an unflagging duty to comply with

Case 2:05-cv-01201-GEB-GGH Document 16 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 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

2

clearly communicated case-management orders”). Since it has not

been shown that Plaintiff’s change of counsel constitutes “good

cause” justifying amendment of the Rule 16 Scheduling Order, the

Stipulation is rejected. 

Dated: February 24, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01201-GEB-GGH Document 16 Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 2