Wasserman

MEMORANDUM **

Sindi Wasserman (“Wasserman”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer, Chino Valley Unified School District (“the District”), and various school officials (“the individual defendants”). Wasserman also appeals the district court’s refusal to grant her request for a pretrial continuance.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s refusal to extend dates in its pretrial order for abuse of discretion, see Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1295 (9th Cir.2000), and review de novo its grant of summary judgment, see Qwest Commc’ns Inc. v. City of Berkeley, 433 F.3d 1253 , 1256 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm the district court.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wasserman leave to amend the pretrial scheduling order, because Wasserman failed to demonstrate good cause to modify the order, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. See Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1294 -95 *528 (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th Cir.1992)).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment because Wasserman did not offer sufficient evidence of…