“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). “[T]he court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee’s note (1983 Amendment Discussion). “We review a court’s refusal to enter a new scheduling order for abuse of discretion.” Rimbert v. Eli Lilly & Co., 647 F.3d 1247, 1254 (10th Cir.2011). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court’s decision is arbitrary, capricious or whimsical, or results in a manifestly unreasonable judgment.” Moothart v. Bell, 21 F.3d 1499, 1504-05 (10th Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1231 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). There was no abuse of discretion. As the
holding that courts of appeals should review all aspects of the district courts rule 11 determination for abuse of discretion and noting that the district court has broad discretion to impose rule 11 sanctions recognizing district courts wide range of discretion in setting amount of rule 11 sanctions recognizing that appellate courts that have applied rule 16 have afforded wide discretion to district courts applications of that rule recognizing rule holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts