1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 LINDA SUNDERLAND, Case No.: 3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG individually and on behalf of all others 13 ORDER RESOLVING OPPOSED similarly situated, et al., JOINT MOTION, AND GRANTING 14 Plaintiffs, IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 15 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR v. CONTINUANCE 16 PHARMACARE U.S., INC., 17 [ECF No. 121] Defendant. 18 19 20 21 Before the Court is the parties’ opposed joint motion regarding Plaintiff’s request 22 for a continuance. ECF No. 112. Plaintiff seeks an order extending certain deadlines 23 regarding class notice, which Defendant opposes in part. Id. 24 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order, or other deadlines set 25 forth by the Court, must demonstrate good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule 26 may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) 27 (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, 28 extend the time”); see also ECF No. 116 at 8 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates 1 [] set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 2 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 3 request”). 4 Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., 5 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. 6 Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH,

, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). 7 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural 8 and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 9 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 10 scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson,

11 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. 12 … If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). Therefore, “a party demonstrates 13 good cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Doe 14 v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 3;24-cv-217-JLS-AHG,

, at 15 *1–*2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025) (quoting Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. 16-cv-1103-PHX- 16 ROS,

, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018)). 17 Here, Plaintiff’s counsel represents to the Court that Plaintiff Linda Sunderland, who 18 represents the New York class, is no longer willing or able to act as class representative. 19 ECF No. 121 at 2, 9. Though Plaintiff’s counsel sought to speak with Ms. Sunderland 20 about her decision, she ultimately decided to cancel their scheduled call, “reiterating her 21 wish to stop participating in the lawsuit” and no further communication has occurred.

22 Thus, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Since Plaintiff’s counsel “is working fastidiously 23 to locate” a replacement class representative for Ms. Sunderland, Plaintiff seeks an 24 extension of certain deadlines. Id. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to extend the deadlines 25 related to class notice. Id. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s request in part, explaining that the 26 instant motion and its underlying issues regarding Ms. Sunderland’s replacement class 27 representative, should have been brought pursuant to the dates set forth in the Scheduling 28 Order and not in a separate motion. Id. at 5–6. 1 After the October 24, 2025, Case Management Conference, the Court issued a 2 Scheduling Order, which included deadlines relating to class notice. ECF No. 116. 3 Specifically, the Court required that Plaintiff provide Defendant with her proposed notice 4 plan, including the form of the notice and how it will be distributed to class members, by 5 November 10, 2025. Id. at 1. Plaintiff’s counsel has represented that they complied with 6 this deadline. ECF No. 121 at 9. By November 19, 2025, Defendant was required to 7 respond to Plaintiff regarding whether it agreed or disagreed with Plaintiff’s plan. ECF 8 No. 116 at 1. If the parties agreed, they were required to file an Unopposed Joint Motion 9 for Approval of Notice Plan by December 3, 2025. Id. If the parties disagreed, the Court 10 set deadlines for the filing of a Joint Motion for Resolution of Dispute Regarding Class 11 Notice Plan for determination by the District Judge. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s portion of the 12 proposed joint motion was to be served on Defendant by December 3, 2025; Defendant’s 13 portion of the proposed joint motion was to be served on Plaintiff by December 15, 2025; 14 and the final joint motion was to be filed by December 16, 2025. Id. Defendant argues that 15 the instant motion should have been filed in the manner set forth above—by the 16 December 16, 2025, deadline—to include all the issues of the parties, such as any notice 17 plan disputes and whether Ms. Sunderland should be replaced as class representative or if 18 decertification is warranted. ECF No. 121 at 5. 19 Here, Plaintiff argues that, because Ms. Sunderland has withdrawn as the class 20 representative, counsel cannot meet the deadlines set forth above regarding class notice. 21 ECF No. 121 at 2–4. The Court disagrees. In the notice plan, the identity of the named 22 plaintiff only serves as a heading, i.e., a name to put in the “plaintiff” section. All of the 23 other elements of notice will be the same, such as the form and substance of the notice and 24 how it will be distributed to class members, regardless of the name of the class 25 representative. The Court finds the parties can finalize the notice, or seek resolution of 26 disputes regarding the notice, while Plaintiff seeks a new class representative. Thus, the 27 Court does not find good cause to extend the deadlines relating to class notice and DENIES 28 Plaintiff’s motion. Given that certain deadlines have passed while the parties were drafting 1 the instant motion, the Court slightly modifies the deadlines as follows: (1) the parties must 2 continue to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff’s notice plan; (2) if there are no disputes 3 regarding the notice plan, aside from any disputes regarding the identity of the class 4 representative, an Unopposed Joint Motion for Approval of Notice Plan must be filed by 5 December 10, 2025; and (3) if there are disputes regarding the notice plan, Plaintiff must 6 serve her portion of the proposed Joint Motion for Resolution of Dispute Regarding Class 7 Notice Plan on Defendant by December 10, 2025; Defendant must serve its portion of the 8 proposed joint motion on Plaintiff by December 17, 2025; Plaintiff and Defendant will 9 have the opportunity to exchange minor1 changes on December 18, 2025; and the final 10 Joint Motion must be filed2 by December 18, 2025. 11 The Court does find good cause to GRANT IN PART Plaintiff’s request, insofar as 12 it alludes to seeking an extension of the scheduling order for filing a motion to amend the 13 complaint to substitute a class representative. The Court, however, finds Plaintiff’s 14 requested 60-day continuance to be unnecessarily lengthy. Instead, given that 15 Ms. Sunderland notified counsel that she no longer wished to serve as a class representative 16 nearly one month ago, the Court finds a three-week extension to be adequate. As such, 17 Plaintiff must file her Motion to Amend the Complaint to Add a New Named Plaintiff by 18 December 29, 2025. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from 19 the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. The period of time between the date 20 you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. 21 Please plan accordingly. Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in 22 the motion not being heard. 23 24 1 The parties are expected to fully articulate their positions in their initial draft of their 25 portions of the joint motion. The purpose of the brief time between the exchange of drafts and the filing deadline is to allow the parties to review and understand each other’s 26 positions and make minor adjustments to their portions in response. 27 2 The joint motion must be no longer than fourteen (14) pages total, excluding exhibits, 28 1 All other dates, deadlines, and procedures set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order 2 (ECF No. 116) remain in place. The Court notes that neither party sought an extension of 3 ||the December 16, 2025, fact discovery deadline. See ECF No. 121. At this time, the Court 4 leave the remainder of the schedule unchanged. Should the District Judge grant 5 || Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, the parties may file a joint motion to amend the 6 || scheduling order regarding fact discovery so that Defendant may take discovery of the new 7 || plaintiff. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: December 7, 2025 ‘0 _ArwioonH. Kovolar Honorable Allison H. Goddard 11 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28