Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00521/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00521-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angelique Ashby
Defendant
City of Sacramento
Defendant
Sarah R. Novo
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

SARAH R. NOVO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 

ANGELIQUE ASHBY,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00521-MCE-AC

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify the Pretrial Scheduling 

Order (“PTSO”) in this matter. For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiff’s Motion is 

DENIED.

The PTSO was originally issued by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on July 11, 

2013, and required that all law and motion matters be heard by September 8, 2014. 

ECF No. 18. Consistent with the PTSO, Defendants filed a motion for summary 

judgment to be heard on August 25, 2014, in advance of the hearing deadline. After that 

motion was filed on or about July 28, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel, Robert Koehler, Jr., 

sought to continue the hearing on grounds that he was involved in preparing for a trial in 

September of 2014 and consequently needed additional time. The Court granted that 

request and Defendants’ Motion was continued to October 14, 2014. In the meantime, 

Case 2:13-cv-00521-MCE-AC Document 78 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 4
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

on August 27, 2014, the case was reassigned to the undersigned given Judge Karlton’s 

retirement. The hearing date on Defendants’ Motion was continued to October 30, 2014,

to accommodate this Court’s schedule.

Plaintiff failed to file any opposition to Defendants’ motion, and on October 21, 

2014, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the case should not be 

dismissed. Ultimately, the Court permitted Plaintiff to file an opposition, which Plaintiff 

submitted on November 18, 2014.1 Thereafter, on December 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed her 

own summary adjudication request. Plaintiff’s motion was stricken without prejudice on 

December 23, 2014, because it was scheduled for hearing more than four months after 

the September 8, 2014, hearing had passed. Plaintiff then waited nearly seven months, 

until July 15, 2015, before filing the Motion to Amend Pretrial Scheduling Order now 

before the Court. Plaintiff seeks to amend the PTSO to permit the filing of her own 

summary judgment request, despite the fact the deadline for hearing any such motion 

passed on September 8, 2014. Plaintiff’s counsel argues that he should be excused 

from meeting that deadline on grounds that he was medically disabled between 

August 13, 2014, and November 1, 2014, and consequently could not have filed his 

motion within that period. Plaintiff’s counsel further argues that because his own expert, 

Dr. Thrasher, had not yet been deposed, that also constitutes grounds for amending the 

PTSO to permit Plaintiff’s motion.

Once a district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16,2 that Rule’s standards control. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Prior to the final pretrial conference in this 

matter, which is scheduled for December 17, 2015, the Court can modify its scheduling 

order upon a showing of “good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

///

 1 The Court mistakenly issued a Minute Order on November 20, 2014 (ECF No. 50) referring to 

Plaintiff’s Opposition as a Motion for Summary Judgment. That Minute Order is hereby stricken as 

erroneous.

2 Unless otherwise stated, all references to “Rule” or “Rules in this Order refer to the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:13-cv-00521-MCE-AC Document 78 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 4
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

“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:

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 modifications. If that 

party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

Id. (citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff’s primary argument is that counsel failed to timely file a motion 

because of a medical disability, and that his efforts cannot be considered less than 

diligent in light of that barrier. The fundamental problem with that contention, however,

is that under the operative PTSO, Plaintiff had to have any motion heard by September 

8, 2014, which means that the motion had to be filed under the local rules twenty-eight 

days beforehand, or by August 11, 2014 (plus additional time for service). Under any 

calculation, that means that Plaintiff had to file her motion before the time that counsel’s 

claimed disability commenced. Consequently, counsel’s period of disability cannot 

provide good cause for not adhering to the original hearing deadline.3

Counsel’s subsequent conduct does nothing to help his argument. He waited 

nearly seven months after his motion was denied as untimely before seeking leave to 

amend the PTSO to permit the motion. The only reason proffered for that delay is the 

fact that Plaintiff’s own expert, Dr. Thrasher, had not yet been deposed. As Defendants 

point out, however, that fact did not preclude Plaintiff’s counsel from obtaining a 

 3 The Court recognizes that counsel’s disability may have constituted good cause for failing to file 

a timely opposition before the October 30, 2014, initial hearing date on Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment (since that was during the period when counsel was medically disabled), but that is not the 

salient issue now before the Court.

Case 2:13-cv-00521-MCE-AC Document 78 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

declaration from Dr. Thrasher to support any motion he wanted to bring. While Plaintiff 

argues that the defense would have argued it needed Dr. Thrasher’s deposition before 

being in a position to adequately respond to the motion, this does not excuse Plaintiff’s 

own failure to act in a timely manner.

For all these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conduct in this 

regard was not diligent under the circumstances and consequently does not provide the 

requisite “good cause” to amend the PTSO in this case. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify the 

Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 61) is therefore DENIED.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2015

 4 Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this 

matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).

Case 2:13-cv-00521-MCE-AC Document 78 Filed 12/08/15 Page 4 of 4