Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00108/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00108-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL NEIL JACOBSEN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00108-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO AMEND 

PLEADINGS and GRANTING DEFENDANT 

CHOE'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE 

DEADLINES FOR DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 

AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION FILING 

(Docs. 54, 55)

I. Background 

On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of the deadline to 

amend pleadings. (Doc. 54.) Defendants Barahas and Diaz opposed the motion. (Doc. 59) 

Defendant Choe filed neither an opposition nor a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff's motion 

to extend the deadline to amend the pleadings. However, the same date that Plaintiff filed his 

motion, Defendant Choe filed a motion to modify the Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order. 

(Doc. 55.) Both Plaintiff and Defendants Barahas and Diaz filed statements of non-opposition to 

Defendant Choe's motion. (Docs. 57, 60.) 

II. Modification of Scheduling Order

A. Plaintiff's Motion

Because Plaintiff is seeking leave to modify the scheduling order in order to file a third 

Case 1:14-cv-00108-JLT Document 61 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

amended complaint, his motion must be considered under both Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1

15 and 16. A party seeking leave of court to amend a pleading, with implications for the schedule 

of a case, must first satisfy Rule 16(b)'s “good cause” standard. Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir.1992). This good cause evaluation “is not 

coextensive with an inquiry into the propriety of the amendment under . . . Rule 15.” Id. at 609. 

Rule 16(b)'s good cause standard is not nearly as liberal as that for Rule 15 and focuses primarily 

on the diligence of the moving party, id., and the reasons for seeking modification, C.F. ex rel. 

Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir.2011). If the party seeking 

to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence, the inquiry should end and the court 

should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 

1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 

If the Court finds good cause to modify a scheduling order, the party next must satisfy 

Rule 15(a). Cf. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608 (citing approvingly Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 

85 (M.D.N.C.1987)). Rule 15(a)(2) states “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend [a]

pleading] when justice so requires,” and the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly stressed that the 

standard for granting leave to amend is generous. U.S. v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 

(9th Cir. 2011); see also Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051; Owens v. 

Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir.2001)(quoting Morongo Band of 

Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.1990)). “In exercising its discretion 

[regarding granting or denying leave to amend] ‘a court must be guided by the underlying 

purpose of Rule 15 -- to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or 

technicalities.’“ DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting 

United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir.1981)). 

Five factors must be considered when assessing the propriety of leave to amend: (1) bad 

faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) 

whether prior amendment has occurred. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227 (1962). 

 

1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will hereinafter be referred to as ARule *.@ Any reference to other statutory 

authorities shall so indicate.

Case 1:14-cv-00108-JLT Document 61 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

"Not all of the factors merit equal weight." Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The 

consideration of prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight. Id., citing DCD 

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1987). Prejudice is the “touchstone of the 

inquiry under rule 15(a).” Id., quoting Lone Star Ladies Inv. Club v. Schlotzsky's Inc., 238 F.3d 

363, 368 (5th Cir.2001); Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973) (stating 

that “the crucial factor is the resulting prejudice to the opposing party”); cf. DCD Programs, 833 

F.2d at 186–87 (noting that party opposing amendment “bears the burden of showing prejudice”). 

"Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a 

presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend." Id., citing Lowrey v. Tex. A 

& M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 245 (5th Cir.1997).

Plaintiff asserts that he is waiting for a ruling on his motion for leave to file the third 

amended complaint as his first basis for an extension of time to file amended pleadings. (Doc. 

54.) However, that motion was denied on September 29, 2015. (Doc. 56.) The only other basis 

Plaintiff raises to support his motion is to make the third amended complaint "less vague" which 

was raised in Defendant Choe's Answer. (Doc. 54.) Plaintiff filed his motion roughly two weeks 

after Defendant Choe's Answer was filed asserting that Plaintiff's allegations are vague. (See 

Docs. 48, 54.) This certainly meets the due diligence requirement of Rule 16. 

Likewise, under Rule 15's requirements, it cannot be said that Plaintiff seeks leave to file a 

third amended complaint in bad faith, or that he unduly delayed in presenting his request. 

However, Plaintiff has twice been granted leave to amend his allegations (see Docs. 11, 13, 15, 

16) and the applicable Discovery and Scheduling Order has twice previously been modified to 

extend the date to amend pleadings (see Docs. 32, 43). Any amendment to Plaintiff's pleading at 

this time would be both futile and unnecessary since Plaintiff's allegations in the 2ndAC have 

been found sufficient to state a cognizable claim against Defendant Choe (see Doc. 17) and all 

that Plaintiff states as his basis for seeking modification of the applicable discovery and 

scheduling order in this case is so that he might make his allegations against Defendant Choe less 

vague. As correctly pointed out by Defendants Barahas and Diaz, Plaintiff's allegations were 

specific enough for Defendant Choe to draft and file an answer. Any clarification that Defendant 

Case 1:14-cv-00108-JLT Document 61 Filed 10/29/15 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Choe needs as to Plaintiff's "vague" allegations can be fleshed out in discovery. Further, 

Defendants Barahas and Diaz would be prejudiced if Plaintiff were allowed to file a third 

amended complaint at this point as they have shown that considerable effort has already been 

expended towards their defense via research, investigation, consultations, meetings, and 

discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order to be 

allowed to make his allegations against Defendant Choe less vague is DENIED.

B. Defendant Choe's Motion

Resolution of Defendant Choe's motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order 

under Rule 16(b)'s "good cause" standard focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party, 

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608-09, and the reasons for seeking modification, C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. 

Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir.2011). Failure to show due diligence

ends the inquiry and results in denial. Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087. 

Defendant Choe filed her motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order less than 

a month after she appeared in this action (see Docs. 48, 55) -- at a time when Plaintiff was 

attempting to file the third amended complaint, that Defendants Barahas and Diaz were 

attempting to strike (see Docs. 44, 47, 48, 50). The order striking Plaintiff's third amended 

complaint and denying his subsequent request to be allowed to file the third amended complaint

issued a few days after Defendant Choe filed her motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling 

Order. (See Docs. 55, 56.) Thus, it cannot be said that Defendant Choe did not exercise due 

diligence in requesting the modification. Accordingly, Defendant Choe's motion to modify the 

Discovery and Scheduling Order is GRANTED. 

III. Conclusion

The Court finds that the predominance of factors do not weigh in favor of granting 

Plaintiff's motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order to extend the time for amending 

pleadings, but do weigh in favor of granting Defendant Choe's motion to modify to extend both 

the deadlines for discovery cut-off and filing of dispositive motions. Based on the above, the 

Court ORDERS:

1. The motion by Plaintiff to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order in this case 

Case 1:14-cv-00108-JLT Document 61 Filed 10/29/15 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

to extend the deadline to amend pleadings, filed on September 25, 2015 (Doc. 54), 

is DENIED; and

2. The motion by Defendant Choe to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order to 

extend the deadlines for discovery cut-off and filing of dispositive motions, filed on 

September 25, 2015 (Doc. 55), is GRANTED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

For the sake of clarity, a Third Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order will issue separately.

Case 1:14-cv-00108-JLT Document 61 Filed 10/29/15 Page 5 of 5