UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 11, 2009
CECILIA FRAHER, PLAINTIFF,
SURYDEVARA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SPAEDER'S REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL WITHIN TEN DAYS, AND CONTINUING MOTION DEADLINE FOR TEN DAYS (Doc. 75)
On February 26, 2009, Defendant Spaeder filed a request for modification of the scheduling order to extend the pretrial dispositive motion deadline from March 12, 2009, to November 9, 2009. Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). "The schedule may be modified 'if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). "If the party seeking the modification 'was not diligent, the inquiry should end' and the motion to modify should not be granted." Id.
Defendant neglected to support her request with her counsel's declaration attesting to the circumstances proffered in support of the request. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice to renewal within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order.
Further, in accordance with this order, the pretrial dispositive motion deadline is CONTINUED ten days from the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.