Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_23-cv-00558/USCOURTS-azd-4_23-cv-00558-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo-Ann Stores LLC
Plaintiff
SD-Sahuarita Properties LLC
Defendant

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jo-Ann Stores LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SD-Sahuarita Properties LLC,

Defendant.

No. CV-23-00558-TUC-AMM

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order filed 

October 29, 2024. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff Jo-Ann Stores LLC (“Jo-Ann Stores”) filed a 

response in opposition (Doc. 32), and Defendant filed a reply (Doc. 33). The motion was 

fully briefed before this Court as of November 19, 2024. (Docs. 31–34.) For the reasons 

discussed below, the Court will grant the motion.1

I. Background

Plaintiff Jo-Ann Stores filed a Complaint regarding its lease with Defendant SDSahuarita Properties, LLC on December 13, 2023. (Doc. 1.) After Defendant filed its 

Answer, the case was stayed for two months during the pendency of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy 

1 The Court is mindful that the parties have requested oral argument on this motion. (Docs. 

33–34.) The Court has discretion when determining whether to grant oral argument. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 78(a); LRCiv 7.2(f); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998) ("[A] 

district court can decide the issue without oral argument if the parties can submit their 

papers to the court."); Bach v. Teton Cnty. Idaho, 207 F. App'x 766, 769 (9th Cir. 2006) 

("Due process does not require the district court to hold oral argument before ruling on 

pending motions."). The Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary to decide this 

motion due to the sufficient and extensive briefing by the parties. (Docs. 31–34.) The Court 

further finds that oral argument will result in unnecessary delay of this matter.

Case 4:23-cv-00558-AMM Document 37 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 6
- 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

proceedings. (Doc. 15.) On June 11, 2024, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting 

pretrial deadlines stipulated by the parties. (Doc. 18.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an 

Amended Complaint on June 28, 2024 (Doc. 20), and Defendant filed an Answer on July 

9, 2024 (Doc. 21). On July 22, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend 

the Scheduling Order, which designated a September 9, 2024 deadline for naming all 

rebuttal experts. (Doc. 25.)

On October 3, 2024, the Court granted Teresa H. Foster’s Motion to Withdraw as 

Defendant’s counsel due to her suspension from the practice of law. (Doc. 28 at 1; Doc. 31 

at 4.) Defendant retained new counsel by the Court ordered deadline of October 24, 2024,

at which time Defendant alleges it first became aware that the rebuttal expert deadline had 

lapsed on September 9, 2024. (Doc. 31 at 4.) Defendant also learned of the impending 

discovery and dispositive motions’ deadlines set for October 31, 2024, and November 30, 

2024, respectively. (Id.) Defendant avers that it unknowingly missed the rebuttal expert 

witness disclosure deadline because its prior counsel was suspended from the practice of 

law. (Id.; Doc. 34.) Defendant now seeks to extend the discovery and dispositive motions’ 

deadlines and to re-open the deadline for noticing rebuttal experts by approximately 60

days.

2

(Id. at 3–4.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion asserting that it is unjustified and would result in 

prejudice. (Doc. 32 at 1, 5–6.) Plaintiff also seeks sanctions. (Id.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff 

does not oppose reopening discovery for the limited purpose of allowing Defendant to 

depose Plaintiff’s expert. (Id. at 2.) Defendant’s reply attaches Declarations of Foster and 

Tayseer Odeh, an agent for Defendant’s manager, supporting its argument that Defendant 

was unaware of Foster’s suspension until after the expiration of the rebuttal expert 

deadline. (Doc. 34 at 2; see Docs. 34-1–34-2.)

/ / /

/ / /

2 Defendant seeks to extend the rebuttal expert deadline to November 27, 2024, the 

discovery cutoff to December 27, 2024, and the dispositive motion deadline to January 31, 

2025. (Doc. 31 at 2.)

Case 4:23-cv-00558-AMM Document 37 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 6
- 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

II. Legal Standard

A scheduling order may be “modified only for good cause and with the judge's 

consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard primarily considers the 

diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 

F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

An extension of a deadline sought after its expiration requires a showing of 

“excusable neglect,” not merely “good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B); see also

Hernandez v. Maricopa Cnty., No. CV-07-272-PHX-JAT, 2009 WL 77647, at *1 (D. Ariz. 

Jan. 12, 2009) (“[E]xcusable neglect is the standard that must be met by the parties to 

receive an extension of an expired deadline.”). “[I]t is clear that ‘excusable neglect’ under 

Rule 6(b) is a somewhat ‘elastic concept’ and is not limited strictly to omissions caused by 

circumstances beyond the control of the movant.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick 

Assoc. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993) (footnotes and citations omitted). Rather, 

“[e]xcusable neglect ‘encompass[es] situations in which the failure to comply with a filing 

deadline is attributable to negligence,’ and includes ‘omissions caused by carelessness.’” 

Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1182, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted) (quoting 

Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 388 and 394). Four factors determine whether neglect is excusable: 

(i) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (ii) the length of the delay and its potential 

impact on the proceedings; (iii) the reason for the delay; and (iv) whether the movant acted 

in good faith. See Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395). “The determination of whether neglect is excusable ‘is 

at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the 

party’s omission.” Id. (quoting Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395); see also Pincay v. Andrews, 389 

F.3d 853, 860 (9th Cir. 2004) (it is within a court's discretion to determine whether 

excusable neglect exists). Like all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 6(b) “is to be 

liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the 

merits.” Ahancian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010); see also 

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986) (the strong policy underlying the 

Case 4:23-cv-00558-AMM Document 37 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 6
- 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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favors decisions on the merits).

III. Analysis

a. Good Cause to Amend the Scheduling Order

Having considered Defendant’s request to extend the discovery and dispositive 

motions’ deadlines, the Court finds Defendant acted diligently in obtaining new counsel 

and seeking to extend the deadlines by a reasonable time and before the close of discovery. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (a scheduling order may be “modified only for good cause and 

with the judge's consent”); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (the “good cause” standard primarily 

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment). As such, the Court finds good 

cause exists to warrant modification of the scheduling order’s discovery and dispositive 

motions’ deadlines. 

b. Excusable Neglect to Amend Expired Rebuttal Expert Disclosure 

Deadline

The Court further finds that the Pioneer factors suggest Defendant’s failure to 

timely notice a rebuttal expert was the result of excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6(b)(1)(B) (an extension of a deadline sought after its expiration requires a showing of 

“excusable neglect,” not merely “good cause”); Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1223–24. The Court 

addresses these factors in turn:

i. Prejudice to Opposing Party

Plaintiff asserts that it will be prejudiced by the extension because it drafted, and at 

this time filed, its motion for summary judgment and that permitting the extension would 

require Jo-Ann Stores to “spend time and money re-tooling the motion for summary 

judgement to address that expert’s opinion.” (Doc. 32, at 11–12; see also Docs. 35–36).

Plaintiff further claims that the delay “specifically exposes Jo-Ann to additional months of 

paying fixed base rent, as opposed to the reduced Substitute Rent” and that Defendant has 

“refused to honor Jo-Ann’s attempts to exercise its option to renew the Lease Term, which 

otherwise currently expires on January 31, 2025.” (Doc. 32 at 11.) The Court finds that 

while permitting Defendant the opportunity to disclose a rebuttal witness may require 

Plaintiff to amend its motion for summary judgement, any such amendment would result 

Case 4:23-cv-00558-AMM Document 37 Filed 12/06/24 Page 4 of 6
- 5 -

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

in de minimis prejudice because Plaintiff’s motion would continue to rely primarily on its 

own expert. Moreover, Plaintiff’s other bases for opposing the motion rest, in large part, 

on the presumption of matters in dispute in this case and simply do not outweigh the strong 

policy for a decision on the merits. Ahancian, 624 F.3d at 1259. As such, the Court finds 

this factor weighs in favor of granting the motion.

ii. Length of Delay and Potential Impact on the Proceedings 

Second, the length of delay in this matter is reasonable and will not significantly 

impact the proceedings or progress of the case. Notably, Defendant filed its motion on 

October 29, 2024, within five days of becoming attorney of record in this matter, and prior 

to the discovery and dispositive motions’ deadlines. (Doc. 31.) Although the September 9, 

2024 rebuttal expert deadline had lapsed by approximately 50 days at the time the motion 

was filed, the Court finds the extension is reasonable, will have a minimal impact on the 

proceedings, and will provide both parties the opportunity to have an expert witness’s 

opinion, thereby supporting a decision on the merits in this matter. Ahancian, 624 F.3d at 

1259. For these reasons, the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of granting the motion. 

iii. Reason for the Delay

Third, Defendant has clearly outlined the reason for the delay in this matter. Due to 

Defendant’s prior counsel’s disciplinary action, Defendant missed the deadline for rebuttal 

expert witness disclosure. Defendant alleges that it was not aware of this deadline until late 

October 2024 and has worked diligently since then to correct the error. (Doc. 34 at 3–4.)

Plaintiff’s argument that prior counsel should have, at a minimum, sought an extension of 

the deadline is well-taken. (Doc. 32 at 12.) However, the carelessness or even negligence 

of Defendant’s prior counsel in failing to advise Defendant of the expert witness deadline

or seek an extension does not preclude a finding of excusable neglect. Bateman, 231 F.3d 

at 1224 (“[T]he term [excusable neglect] covers cases of negligence, carelessness and 

inadvertent mistake.”). For this reason, the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of 

granting the motion.

/ / /

Case 4:23-cv-00558-AMM Document 37 Filed 12/06/24 Page 5 of 6
- 6 -

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

iv. Good Faith by the Moving Party

Finally, there is no indicia that Defendant acted in bad faith. The Court notes that 

Defendant was actively defending this case before the withdrawal of its prior counsel. 

Further, Defendant acted promptly to retain new counsel and bring this motion.

IV. Conclusion

Having considered the motion, the Court finds good cause and excusable neglect to 

amend the Scheduling Order. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order is 

GRANTED. (Doc. 31.) The following deadlines are amended accordingly:

(1) The deadline to disclose rebuttal experts is December 16, 2024.

(2) The deadline for discovery is January 13, 2025.

(3) The deadline to file dispositive motions is February 3, 2025. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. 

(Doc. 32.)

Dated this 5th day of December, 2024.

Case 4:23-cv-00558-AMM Document 37 Filed 12/06/24 Page 6 of 6