Solomon v. Solotech U.S. Corporation

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 5 — DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 6 — 7 DONNA SOLOMON, Case No. 2:25-cv-00552-NJK 8 Plaintiff, Order 9 v. [Docket No. 32] 10 SOLOTECH U.S. CORP., 11 Defendant. 12 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend case management deadlines. Docket 13 No. 32. 14 A request to extend unexpired deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a 15 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Local Rule 26-3. The good cause analysis turns 16 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. 17 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The diligence 18 obligation is ongoing.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. 19 Ariz. 2012 ). The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire 20 period of time already allowed. See Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 731 F.Supp.2d 961 , 967 21 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999)). When 22 diligence has not been shown in support of an extension request, “the inquiry should end.” 23 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 24 In the instant stipulation, the parties seek to extend case management deadlines by ninety 25 days. Docket No. 32. The justification provided for this lengthy request is that “[c]ounsel for 26 Defendant has undergone a recent change and this attorney substitution requires additional time 27 for Defendant’s new counsel to familiarize themselves with this case and conduct discovery.” 28 Docket No. 32 at 3. Local Rule IA 11-6(c) states: 1 Except where accompanied bya request for relief under subsection (e) of this rule, the attorney’s signature on a stipulation to substitute 2 the attorney into a case constitutes an express acceptance of all dates then set for pretrial proceedings, trial, or hearings, by the discovery 3 plan or any court order. Additionally, Local Rule IA 11-6(d) states that, “[d]ischarge, withdrawal, or substitution of an 5] attorney will not alone be reason for delay of pretrial proceedings, discovery, the trial, or any 6| hearing in the case.” On August 29, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation to substitute counsel for 7| Defendant, pursuant to LR JA 11-6(c). Docket No. 29. In that stipulation, Defendant submitted 8|| that, “[t]his stipulated substitution of counsel will not result in delay of discovery, trial, or any 9| hearing in this case. /d. at 2. Just eight days after the Court granted the stipulation to substitute 10] counsel, Docket No. 31, the instant stipulation requests a ninety-day extension of the case 11] management deadlines. Docket No. 32. However, the parties’ assertion that additional time is 12] needed “for Defendant’s new counsel to familiarize themselves with this case and conduct discovery” does not establish good cause for the extension sought. See Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172 , 1179 (D. Nev. 2022) (citing LR IA 11-6(d)). Further, the parties 15] have conducted virtually no affirmative discovery; therefore, the Court cannot find diligence. 16 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ stipulation without prejudice. Docket No. 17} 32. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: September 11, 2025 20 7 on — □ Nancy J. Koppe, 21 United Statés-Magistrate Judge — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —