Stemmelin v. Matterport, Inc.

Background

John Stemmelin brought a false and deceptive advertising action against Matterport, Inc., and other defendants. He asked the court to modify the scheduling order so he could file a motion for partial summary judgment. The court decided the request on the papers and vacated the scheduled hearing.

The court noted that the parties had previously received a revised schedule after largely failing to use seven months of discovery time. An earlier order warned that further schedule changes would require a compelling justification.

Reasoning

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be changed for good cause when the deadline could not reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension. Stemmelin primarily argued that he should not have moved for summary judgment before the court ruled on class certification. But the court had denied class certification on March 14, 2022, more than three months before the dispositive-motion deadline, leaving him enough time to prepare a summary-judgment motion.

The court found that Stemmelin did not raise the need for additional time until more than two months after the deadline and had not been diligent. It also found that the withdrawal of his co-counsel did not affect the analysis and that allowing the late motion would not serve judicial economy.

Disposition

Judge William Alsup denied Stemmelin’s motion to modify the scheduling order and vacated the hearing. The order did not decide the merits of the proposed partial summary-judgment motion.