Owen v. Hyundai Motor America

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | Dayna Owen, No. 2:22-cv-00882-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Hyundai Motor America, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Dayna Owen has filed a pending motion to continue pretrial dates and deadlines.

18 | See Mot. Continue, ECF No. 39. She asks to change these deadlines because this action was | recently stayed for approximately three months while she satisfied an award of attorneys’ fees | this court imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d).! See generally Order (Mar. 15, | 2023), ECF No. 31 (issuing stay); Order (June 26, 2023), ECF No. 40 (lifting stay). A hearing on | Owen’s pending motion is currently set for August 11, 2023, the first available date after her | motion was filed. See Not., ECF No. 39-1. Discovery is currently scheduled to close a few days | later, on August 16, 2023. See Mins. & Sched. Order, ECF No. 13.

' <7 a plaintiff who previously dismissed an action in any court files an action based on or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court: (1) may order the plaintiff to pay all or part of the costs of that previous action; and (2) may stay the proceedings until the plaintiff has complied.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d).

1 Owen has applied ex parte for an order advancing the hearing and briefing schedule on her pending motion. See generally Ex Parte App., ECF No. 43. She argues that waiting until the noticed hearing date “will hamper [her] ability to adequately manage the schedule of the case and meet the current pretrial deadlines, which were set before the stay in the case and remain unchanged even now.” Id. at 4. Owen also is considering a potential motion for leave to amend her complaint. “[R]esolving the case schedule as soon as possible,” she argues, will allow her “to plan her discovery and motion practice” and “assess the appropriate time to seek leave to file an amended Complaint.” Id. at 6. Hyundai opposes the ex parte application. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 44.

10 The ex parte application (ECF Nos. 41–43) is denied. The court will hear and resolve Owen’s motion to continue on the ordinary timeline, which follows the time-tested schedule imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court’s Local Rules. See, e.g., Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 491 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Adhering to these deadlines will not cause Owen undue prejudice. The parties may conduct discovery while the motion is pending, and if Owen ultimately shows good cause to extend pretrial deadlines, the court will set a schedule that avoids undue prejudice and accounts for the circumstances. Owen may also seek leave to amend her complaint independently if she chooses and can show good cause. See Standing Scheduling Order at 1–2, ECF No. 14. In addition, to ensure the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of Owen’s motion to continue, Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, that motion is submitted without oral arguments on the deadline for replies, see E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(d), (g). The August 11, 2023 hearing is therefore vacated. The motion to continue (ECF No. 39) remains pending.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 DATED: July 6, 2023.