Hartman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Jason Hartman and Ashley Hartman, No. 2:20-cv-01492-KJM-DB Plaintiffs, ORDER Vv. United States of America, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 The parties request the court vacate the scheduling order. Stip. at 2; ECF No. 41. They 18 explain there is good cause because the plaintiff plans to file an unopposed motion for leave to amend his complaint to add an additional defendant. /d. Due to this amendment, the parties say 20 they will need more time for discovery. /d. Once a scheduling order is issued, a motion to amend the pleadings is governed by Rule 16’s “good cause” requirement. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”). Were the court to grant the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint, then there would likely be good cause to…