Faizi v. Temori
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:22-cv-04224
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Faizi v. Temori, Judge DeMarchi denied Faizi’s request to modify the schedule to file a late summary-judgment motion.
The ruling affected Ahmad Mukhtar Faizi and the defendants by leaving the existing case schedule and summary-judgment deadline in place.
What happened
In Faizi v. Temori, Ahmad Mukhtar Faizi asked to change the case schedule so he could file a summary-judgment motion after the deadline. He brought the case individually and on behalf of Falafel Flame, Inc., against Baktash Temori, Masoud Rustakhis, and other entities.
The court found that Faizi had not shown the diligence required to change the schedule. He did not address the governing rule, had previously delayed discovery disputes, waited more than a month after asking about an extension to file his request, and acknowledged that his attorneys had not calendared the deadline. The court also found that the late filing could prejudice the defendants as they prepared for trial.
The court denied Faizi’s motion for permission to file a late summary-judgment motion. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi reminded the parties to follow the existing deadlines and pretrial requirements.
The detailed version
- Faizi v. Temori · No. 5:22-cv-04224
- Virginia Demarchi
- Dec. 13, 2023
Background
Ahmad Mukhtar Faizi filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint seeking money damages and injunctive relief for himself and on behalf of nominal defendant Falafel Flame, Inc. The defendants included Falafel Flame directors Baktash Temori and Masoud Rustakhis, along with other entities, including allegedly unauthorized Falafel Flame restaurants.
The court’s case-management order required dispositive motions, including summary-judgment motions, to be filed by October 17, 2023. Faizi asked for permission to file his summary-judgment motion by December 15, 2023. The defendants opposed the request.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) permits a scheduling order to be changed only for “good cause” and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that this standard primarily examines the diligence of the party seeking the change. If that party was not diligent, the court generally ends the inquiry. Any prejudice to the opposing party may provide an additional reason to deny the request.
Court’s Analysis
Faizi did not address Rule 16 in his motion and did not show the required diligence. The court had previously noted that he was dilatory in discovery and waited too long to bring discovery disputes to the court. At a November 7, 2023 hearing, Faizi asked about extending the summary-judgment deadline, which was already overdue, and the court told him to make a written request. He waited more than a month before filing the present motion on December 8, 2023.
The court rejected Faizi’s argument that an earlier order concerning a deadline for seeking default judgment showed that the court had recognized a need to adjust the dispositive-motion deadlines. It also noted that Faizi’s counsel acknowledged failing to calendar the summary-judgment deadline and apparently failing to become sufficiently familiar with the district’s local rules and the court’s standing orders. The court further found that allowing the late motion at that stage could prejudice the defendants’ ability to prepare for the scheduled trial.
Disposition
The court denied Faizi’s motion for leave to file a belated summary-judgment motion. It reminded the parties of their deadlines and obligations under the court’s standing order concerning pretrial preparation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.