Munoz v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the parties’ stipulated request to amend the scheduling order in this removed civil action. The court held that the parties failed to demonstrate diligence and good cause because they sought to reopen discovery and reset deadlines after discovery and the dispositive-motion deadline had expired. The court left the pretrial conference set for January 12, 2026, while permitting a future stipulated request to continue the pretrial conference and trial date if supported by good cause.

Holdings

1. The stipulated request to amend the scheduling order was denied because the parties failed to demonstrate the diligence and good cause required to modify the order.
2. The parties' interest in mediation did not establish good cause to reopen discovery or reset all case-management deadlines, although the parties could submit a separate stipulated request supported by good cause to continue the pretrial conference and trial date.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the parties established good cause and diligence sufficient to modify the scheduling order and reopen discovery.
2. Whether the court should reset the case-management, pretrial, and trial deadlines based on the parties' stipulated request and anticipated mediation.

Disposition

other