Patterson

Patterson v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 18, 20242:21-cv-02398California312 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Melvin Patterson, No. 2:21-cv-02398-KJM-AC Plaintiff, ORDER v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc., et al., 1S Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Melvin Patterson applies ex parte to extend the deadline for dispositive motions in this action. ECF No. 44. The court previously ordered all dispositive motions to be heard by January 26, 2024. ECF No. 37. Patterson asks that all dispositive motions be filed by that date. ECF No. 44. Patterson does not explain the reason for his request, but he argues an extension will cause no prejudice and will permit the court and parties to narrow the issues for trial. Rozsynksi Decl. 8-12, ECF No. 44-1. The defense does not stipulate to an extension or join the request, 23 but it has filed no opposition to the ex parte application, and the deadline for oppositions has 24 passed. “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.