Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00027/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00027-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEFFREY LANINI and KRISTA LANINI, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-00027-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

On January 12, 2016, the court issued a scheduling order in this case, setting the 

following dates: 

 Completion of fact discovery: March 14, 2016 

 Disclosure of expert witnesses due: February 3, 2016 

 Supplemental expert disclosures due: April 4, 2016 

 Completion of expert discovery: May 9, 2016 

 Last date for the hearing of dispositive motions: June 17, 2016 

 Joint pretrial conference statement due: September 2, 2016 

 Final pretrial conference: September 23, 2016 

 Trial briefs due: October 24, 2016 

 Jury trial: November 7, 2016 

Case 2:13-cv-00027-KJM-EFB Document 78 Filed 06/29/16 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 

2

See Minute Order, ECF No. 70. No party filed a dispositive motion, and no hearing went forward 

before June 17, 2016. Noting the absence of any dispositive motion, the court issued a minute 

order advancing the final pretrial conference to July 29, 2016, with a joint pretrial statement due 

July 8, 2016. ECF No. 76. 

On June 24, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order. ECF No. 77. 

They explained that on June 21, 2016, after the cutoff for hearing of dispositive motions, the 

parties attended private mediation before the Honorable David A. Garcia (Ret.), but could not 

reach an agreement to settle the case. Id. at 2. They request that the court now modify the 

scheduling order as follows: 

 Completion of fact discovery: July 22, 2016 

 Disclosure of expert witnesses due: July 22, 2016 

 Supplemental expert disclosures due: August 19, 2016 

 Completion of expert discovery: September 16, 2016 

They also request that the balance of the dates be continued ninety days, while saying that this 

can be done without moving the November 2016 trial date previously set. Id. at 2–3. The latter 

part of their request appears to the court to reflect a miscalculation, at best, of the ninety day 

continuances requested. 

A scheduling order may only be changed with the court’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). When litigants request changes to a scheduling order, the court’s inquiry focuses on 

their diligent efforts to comply. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992). On occasion, courts in this district have looked to a more detailed three-part 

test: a movant may establish good cause by showing (1) it diligently assisted with creation of the 

Rule 16 order, (2) circumstances beyond its control and anticipation prevented compliance with 

the order, and (3) after it became apparent a new schedule was needed, the party promptly sought 

relief. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). 

The court’s own original scheduling order included the following cautionary note: 

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order 

shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of 

Case 2:13-cv-00027-KJM-EFB Document 78 Filed 06/29/16 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

good cause. Agreement by the parties pursuant to stipulation alone 

does not constitute good cause. Except in extraordinary 

circumstances, unavailability of witnesses or counsel does not 

constitute good cause. 

Order Nov. 5, 2014, at 9, ECF No. 60. 

Diligent attempts to settle a case, although laudable, do not relieve litigants of their 

obligation to keep up with a pretrial scheduling order’s dates and deadlines. Parties who forego 

motion practice and discovery entirely while negotiating settlement are not diligent. Settlement 

negotiations are not circumstances beyond a litigant’s control. And here, the parties made no 

filings as the last dates for hearing of discovery and dispositive motions came and went, making 

their request only now, requesting reopening of dates that have passed, in some cases months ago. 

The parties’ proposed schedule is neither justified nor feasible. Their request is 

DENIED. On the court’s own motion, the due date for the parties’ final pretrial conference 

statement is POSTPONED one week to July 15, 2016. All other dates remain as set by the court 

in January 2016 and to the extent modified in the June 20, 2016 Minute Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 28, 2016. 

Case 2:13-cv-00027-KJM-EFB Document 78 Filed 06/29/16 Page 3 of 3