Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00307/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00307-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis Burton
Plaintiff
Nationstar Mortgage, 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS BURTON, on behalf of himself and all 

other similarly situated,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC a Delaware 

limited liability company,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-00307 –LJO- JLT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 61)

I. INTRODUCTION

Currently before the Court is Dennis Burton’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for reconsideration filed on 

June 12, 2014. Doc. 61. Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the assigned Magistrate Judge’s order 

issued on May 29, 2014, Doc. 60, which denied Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Defendant”) opposes the pending motion. Doc. 62. Having carefully 

considered the parties’ submissions and the complete record in this case, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on March 4, 2013, alleging that Defendant violated the 

Federal Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”); specifically that Defendant failed to timely 

honor permanent modification agreements (“PMAs”) Defendant signed and delivered to borrowers. 

Doc. 1. Plaintiff sought to bring the action on behalf of himself and “a class of similarly situated 

homeowners.” Id. On April 24, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 8. The Court granted 

this motion in part on May 29, 2013. On June 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint to 

which Defendant responded on July 8, 2013. Docs. 15 and 16. On July 25, 2013 the then-assigned 

Case 1:13-cv-00307-LJO-JLT Document 71 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 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

2

Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin held a scheduling conference and set a briefing schedule. Doc. 23. 

Defendant filed a First Amended Answer on September 20, 2013. Doc. 30. 

On November 26, 2013, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Doc. 

36. With the Court’s permission, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 29, 2013,

which amended the class definition. Docs. 43 and 45. The Defendant answered the Second Amended

Complaint on January 16, 2014. Doc. 46. 

On February 5, 2014, the parties filed a joint request to extend the class certification deadlines. 

Doc. 48. The Magistrate Judge granted the requested extension but warned the parties that:

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a 

showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations 

extending the deadline contained herein will not be considered unless they are 

accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, 

which establish good cause for granting the relief requested. 

Doc. 52 at 5. As the parties continued to have disputes regarding class certification and 

discovery, the Magistrate Judge held a telephonic conference on March 17, 2014. Doc. 54. The 

parties, however, were unable to come to an agreement regarding the production of documents.

The court advised Plaintiff to file a “Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement” in compliance 

with Local Rule 251(c). Doc. 54. 

On May 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty-day extension in order to complete 

non-expert class discovery and to modify the remaining motion schedule for class certification. 

Doc. 55. Defendant opposed the extension on May 15, 2014. Doc 56. Plaintiff replied on May 

22, 2014, and the Magistrate Judge issued its order denying the Motion on May 29, 2014. Docs. 

58 and 60. The Magistrate Judge stated that “Plaintiff [] failed to make the requisite showing of 

good cause required by Rule 16[,] [and] fail[ed] to show both that the discovery issues could not 

have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated, or that he was diligent in seeking amendment of 

the case schedule ‘once it became apparent that [he] could not comply with the order.’” Doc. 60 

at 6. 

Plaintiff filed the motion now pending before the Court requesting reconsideration of the 

Case 1:13-cv-00307-LJO-JLT Document 71 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 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

3

order denying the motion for extension on June 12, 2014. Doc. 61. Defendant submitted an 

opposition on July 1, 2014, and Plaintiff responded on July 8, 2014. Docs. 62 and 64. 

 

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In May 2009, Defendant entered into a Servicer Participation Agreement with Fannie Mae 

agreeing to participate in HAMP, a federal program designed to provide struggling homeowners with an 

opportunity to modify their home loan mortgages and avoid foreclosures. As a HAMP provider 

Defendant entered into PMAs with customers. Doc. 61. 

On October 9, 2009, Defendant countersigned Plaintiff’s HAMP PMA agreeing to modify the 

loan on Plaintiff’s home in Bakersfield, California. Plaintiff made payments on his loan, as instructed by 

Defendant. Defendant, however, simultaneously sent Plaintiff notices of default and eventually referred 

Plaintiff’s loan to foreclosure, without modifying Plaintiff’s loan. In March 2010, Defendant foreclosed 

on Plaintiff’s home. Doc. 61. 

IV. STANDARD OF DECISION

A party may serve and file objections to a non-dispositive pretrial order issued by a magistrate 

judge within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The district 

judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is 

clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.

1

(emphasis added). “A finding is clearly erroneous when 

although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the 

 

1 The Court is further empowered by 28 U.S.C §636(b)(1)(A): 

A judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the 

court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to 

dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal 

case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may reconsider any 

pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is 

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Emphasis added. This is also the standard adopted y by Local Rule 303. “The standard that the assigned Judge shall 

use in all such requests [for reconsideration by a District Judge] is the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard 

set forth in 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A).” E.D. Cal. L. R. 303(f). 

Case 1:13-cv-00307-LJO-JLT Document 71 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 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

4

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 

N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial 

phase of litigation, and its decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order ... will not be 

disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 

F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992).

V. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge committed “clear error” by (1) focusing on three 

instances of delay without reviewing the reasons for delay (Doc. 61 at 13); (2) applying the standard that 

required Plaintiff to act “as soon as the need for an extension became apparent” as it applied to 

scheduling Rule 30(b)(6) depositions (Doc. 61 at 13); and (3) finding Plaintiff had not been diligent 

because counsel failed to contact the Magistrate Judge earlier regarding sampling issues, filing a joint 

discovery motion, or asking for additional time (Doc. 61 at 19). 

“A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 

disregarded by counsel without peril...The pretrial scheduling order is designed to allow the district 

court to better manage its calendar and to facilitate more efficient disposition of cases by settlement or 

by trial.” Hood v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008). “A party 

may only obtain a modification of a pretrial scheduling order upon a showing of good cause.” Irving v. 

Cnty. of Sacramento, 231 F. App'x 584, 585 (9th Cir. 2007)(internal citations and quotations omitted).

When the proposed modification is an amendment to the pleadings, the moving party 

may establish good cause by showing “(1) that [he or she] was diligent in assisting the 

court in creating a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [his or her] noncompliance with a rule 

16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding [his or her] diligent efforts to 

comply, because of the development of matters which could not have been reasonably 

foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference; and (3) that [he 

or she] was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent 

that [he or she] could not comply with the order.

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (citations omitted). Plaintiff failed to 

show that he met any of the three requirements set above. Plaintiff failed to follow the Magistrate 

Case 1:13-cv-00307-LJO-JLT Document 71 Filed 08/04/14 Page 4 of 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

5

Judge’s order to submit a Joint Statement Regarding Discovery Disagreement after the unsuccessful 

discovery conference held on March 17, 2014. Plaintiff also waited for several weeks to request an 

amendment of the Rule 16 order even though it was immediately apparent after the conference that more 

time would be needed to resolve discovery issues. “If the party seeking the modification ‘was not 

diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. S. 

California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff failed to present evidence to the Magistrate Judge showing that he was diligent in his 

inquiry. Rather, in his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff stated that he was in discussions with 

Defendant and awaiting discovery. Doc.61 at 9. Discussions regarding dispute resolution “do not, in and 

of themselves, arise to good cause for modifying a scheduling order.” Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig 

Pac. Co., 1:11-CV-01273 LJO BAM, 2013 WL 1164941 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013). Given the course of 

litigation, this was not an “unanticipated development.” Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc. v. Golden Empire 

Mortgage, Inc., 1:09-CV-01018 LJO JLT, 2010 WL 2679907 (E.D. Cal. July 2, 2010). The Parties could 

not come to an agreement during the discovery dispute conference in the weeks prior, nor had Plaintiff 

complied with the Court’s order to file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement which would have 

aided in the resolution of the dispute. Doc. 60. Instead, Plaintiff waited until the discovery deadline to 

make a motion for an extension. Doc. 55. As the Magistrate Judge held 

Local Rule 144(d) cautions parties against delaying until the last moment to seek extensions, 

stating:

Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other 

counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes 

apparent. Request for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing 

date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor. 

Doc. 60 at 5. 

Furthermore, “discovery disputes...are a common component of any civil matter and they 

should be anticipated...That this case became plagued with discovery disputes at the eleventh hour is 

[therefore] of no consequence and in no way excuses Plaintiff from its failure to conduct discovery 

diligently from the outset.” Gerawan Farming, Inc., 2013 WL 1164941. The assigned Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:13-cv-00307-LJO-JLT Document 71 Filed 08/04/14 Page 5 of 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

6

previously warned the parties that they needed to resolve their ongoing disputes and that no further 

extension would be given without a showing of good cause. The record is therefore sufficient to support 

the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff did not act diligently in conducting discovery.

Plaintiff has failed to point to any legal error that would lead this court to believe that the 

Magistrate Judge’s denial was “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A). 

VI. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Magistrate Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order is not 

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00307-LJO-JLT Document 71 Filed 08/04/14 Page 6 of 6