Mark Hendrickson, et al. v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied the parties’ joint motion to amend the scheduling order to accommodate mediation on February 12, 2026. The court held that the parties had not shown good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), emphasized their lack of diligence and repeated extension requests, and left the existing deadlines in effect.

Holdings

1. A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause, and the good-cause inquiry primarily turns on the diligence of the party seeking the modification.
2. The parties did not establish good cause or extraordinary circumstances for amending the scheduling order because they delayed substantive settlement discussions until after the factual record closed and had long known of the dispositive-motion deadline.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the parties demonstrated good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) to amend the scheduling order and continue all remaining deadlines by approximately 60 days to accommodate mediation.
2. Whether the parties' agreement to mediate and the availability of only a later mediation date constituted extraordinary circumstances warranting another continuance.

Disposition

other