Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE: Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing,

Sales Practices, and Products Liability

Litigation.

_________________________________

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

Leeds, Jackie v. Matrixx

Initiatives, Inc., et al.

CV 10-0915-PHX-FJM

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff Jackie Leed’s motion to amend her complaint (doc.

706), defendants’ response (doc. 820), and plaintiff’s reply (doc. 832). Plaintiff moves for

leave to file an untimely amended complaint, and to relate the amendments back to the date

of the filing of the original complaint. Plaintiff seeks to add manufacturer and packager

Botanical Laboratories, Inc. and retailer Wal-Mart as defendants. Because this motion was

not filed or approved by Lead Counsel, and because plaintiff has not shown good cause to

modify the Rule 16 Scheduling Order, we deny the motion for leave to amend. 

First, this motion was not filed by plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel, as required by Case

Management Order #1 (doc. 182). We have reminded plaintiffs of the importance of this

requirement before. See docs. 510, 673, and 831. Plaintiff explains that she contacted Lead

Counsel, who informed her that defendants were not stipulating to any amendments. Plaintiff

interpreted this information as implied permission to file this motion. However, defendants’

position as to the amending of complaints has no bearing on plaintiffs and Lead Counsel’s

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 876 Filed 09/15/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

responsibility to comply with our Case Management Order. 

Second, even if Lead Counsel had filed this motion, we would deny it because of

plaintiff’s failure to act diligently. Plaintiff filed this motion on August 18, 2010, over four

months after the April 15, 2010 deadline set by the Rule 16 Scheduling Order for motions

to amend or join additional parties, including retailers (doc. 183). The conditional transfer

order of plaintiff’s case was entered on April 13, 2010, and plaintiff’s complaint was

consolidated with this MDL on April 27, 2010 (doc. 315). As we have previously explained,

because the Rule16 deadline has passed, the Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P. standard for amending

a complaint does not apply. See Order of August 10, 2010, doc. 673. Instead, plaintiff must

show good cause for modifying the scheduling order, pursuant to Rule 16(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ.

P. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 605 (9th Cir. 1992). We may

modify the order only “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party

seeking the extension.” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087

(9th Cir. 2002). When the party seeking modification is not diligent, “the inquiry should end

and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Id.

Plaintiff has not shown that she acted diligently to comply with the order, and thus

there is no good cause for modification. Given that plaintiff’s action was not transferred to

the MDL until after the deadline for amendments had passed, it would be unfair to require

strict adherence to the scheduling order. However, plaintiff has delayed months, not days,

in moving for leave to amend. Plaintiff claims that she only learned of the existence of

Botanical Laboratories after joining the MDL, and did not know of the allegations against

Botanical until after expert reports were disclosed in August, 2010. Even assuming this is

true, a diligent party could have investigated Botanical’s role as soon as he discovered its

involvement in the MDL, rather than wait several months to ascertain any possible liability.

Plaintiff also claims that Lead Counsel never instructed her as to the deadline for motions to

amend, and she did not know of the deadline “ until recently.” Reply, 2. This assertion is

unavailing, as a diligent party would have reviewed all relevant deadlines shortly after his

action was transferred to the MDL. Additionally, plaintiff offers no explanation for delaying

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 876 Filed 09/15/10 Page 2 of 3
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 -

so long before naming Wal-Mart as a defendant. 

Finally, plaintiff argues she preserved her claims against unnamed defendants by

including fictitious parties Does 1 though 10 and Roe Corporations 1 though 10 in her

complaint. However, plaintiff’s highly generalized allegations that these unnamed parties

“are responsible in some manner for designing, labeling, manufacturing, marketing,

distributing or selling the product” do not constitute the requisite diligence. Plaintiff

apparently made no immediate effort to identify these parties. Because Rule 10(a), Fed. R.

Civ. P., requires complaints to name all the parties, fictitiously named defendants are neither

favored nor allowed in federal court. 

We thus find no good cause to modify our order by granting plaintiff leave to amend

months after her case was transferred to the MDL. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED

DENYING plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (doc. 706).

DATED this 14th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 876 Filed 09/15/10 Page 3 of 3