Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03002/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03002-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ANNETTE PIERCE,

NO. CIV. S-09-3002 FCD/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SPROUTS CAFÉ INC. and

DOES ONE THROUGH FIFTY,

inclusive,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendant Sprouts Café

Inc.’s (“defendant”) motion to amend its answer and for sanctions

against plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 based on

counsel’s failure to stipulate to the requested amendment.1

Defendant does not cite any procedural basis for its motion. 

Because a scheduling order is in place, Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16(b) governs, and the court considers defendant’s

motion under that standard. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Case 2:09-cv-03002-FCD-DAD Document 40 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 6
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

The court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order provides: 

“No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is

permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown.” 

(Docket #11, filed Dec. 29, 2009.) Once the court has entered a

pretrial scheduling order, the standards of Rule 16 rather than

Rule 15 govern amendment of the pleadings. See Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992);

Eckert Cold Storage, Inc. v. Behl, 943 F. Supp. 1230, 1232-33

(E.D. Cal. 1996).

A scheduling order is not “a frivolous piece of paper, idly

entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without

peril.” Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141

(D. Me. 1985). The pretrial scheduling order is designed to

allow the district court to better manage its calendar and to

facilitate more efficient disposition of cases by settlement or

by trial. See Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d at 610-11; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes (1983 amendment). 

Orders entered before the final pretrial conference may be

modified only “upon a showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b). The good cause requirement of Rule 16 primarily considers

the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The pretrial

scheduling order can only be modified “if it cannot reasonably be

met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 

Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d at 609. 

When evaluating whether a party was diligent, the Ninth

Circuit has determined that “the focus of the inquiry is upon the

moving party’s reasons for modification. If that party was not

diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. at 610; see also

Case 2:09-cv-03002-FCD-DAD Document 40 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 6
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

Gestetner, 108 F.R.D. at 141. 

When the proposed modification is an amendment to the

pleadings, the moving party may establish good cause by showing

“(1) that [he or she] was diligent in assisting the court in

creating a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [his or her]

noncompliance with a rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur,

notwithstanding [his or her] diligent efforts to comply, because

of the development of matters which could not have been

reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16

scheduling conference; and (3) that [he or she] was diligent in

seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent

that [he or she] could not comply with the order.” Jackson v.

Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)(citations

omitted). 

Only after the moving party has demonstrated diligence under

Rule 16 does the court apply the standard under Rule 15 to

determine whether the amendment was proper. See Mammoth

Recreations, 975 F.2d at 608; Eckert Cold Storage, 943 F. Supp.

at 1232 n.3.

 Here, defendant has diligently sought the instant amendment

of its answer. Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608. After conducting

certain discovery, including the taking of plaintiff’s

deposition, defendant sought to clarify its position with respect

to removal of the alleged architectural barriers at its facility. 

Specifically, defendant informed plaintiff that it no longer

claimed that the removal of any alleged barriers was too costly,

but rather it believed that either (1) no legal barriers existed

or (2) that any removal was not “readily achievable” (and thus,

Case 2:09-cv-03002-FCD-DAD Document 40 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 6
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 Defendant moves to amend to, in part, remove its

defense of a violation of the statute of limitations. (Docket

#31-2 at 2:21.) However, in the proposed amended answer, filed

in conjunction with the motion, defendant asserts that defense as

its fifteenth affirmative defense. (Docket #31-1.) The court

construes this as an oversight and directs defendant to delete

that defense upon filing and serving its amended answer pursuant

to this order.

4

required) since the barriers did not fall within relevant

statutory provisions. In April and May 2010, the parties

discussed a stipulation permitting defendant’s proposed amendment

of its answer, but ultimately they could not agree on its terms. 

Defendant promptly filed the instant motion in June 2010. 

(Docket #31.)

By the motion, defendant seeks to amend its answer with

respect to the issue of the feasibility of the barriers’ removal,

if any, as set forth above, and to (1) add a defense of a failure

to provide defendant with the requisite notices under state law

and (2) to remove its affirmative defenses of violation of the

statute of limitations2 and failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. (Docket #31-2 at 2.) Contrary to plaintiff’s

protestations, these amendments clarify defendant’s positions in

the case and streamline the issues, thus serving the interests of

justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (requiring that leave to amend

be freely given where justice so requires). How these amendments

impact further discovery in the case is not at issue on this

motion. To the extent plaintiff challenges defendant’s

previously provided or future discovery responses, she can file a

motion to compel with the assigned magistrate judge on those

issues.

Case 2:09-cv-03002-FCD-DAD Document 40 Filed 08/03/10 Page 4 of 6
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 Defendant requests an award of fees as sanctions in the

amount of $1,250.00, representing the costs incurred in bringing

the motion to amend.

5

While the court grants defendant’s motion to amend its

answer, it cannot grant an award of fees to defendant.3 Section

1927 allows the court to award fees against “any attorney . . .

who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and

vexatiously.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. However, the Ninth Circuit has

cautioned that “[s]anctions [under Section 1927] should be

reserved for the ‘rare and exceptional case where the action is

clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable or without legal

foundation, or brought for an improper purpose.’” Primus Auto.

Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 649 (9th Cir. 1997)

(quoting Operating Eng'rs Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d

1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988)). Such is clearly not the case here. 

While the parties discussed a stipulation to permit amendment of

the answer, under the court’s scheduling order leave of court,

upon a finding of good cause, was necessary to permit the

amendment. Defendant was required to file the instant motion

with the court, and thus, plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to agree

to the amendment is not legally unreasonable or frivolous

conduct. Moreover, based on plaintiff’s opposition to the

instant motion, the court cannot find plaintiff’s arguments

legally untenable. While plaintiff does not prevail on the

motion, her arguments in opposition are not frivolous. 

Accordingly, there are no grounds to award sanctions under

Section 1927.

Case 2:09-cv-03002-FCD-DAD Document 40 Filed 08/03/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Defendant’s motion to amend its answer is GRANTED. 

Defendant shall file and serve its amended answer in accordance 

with this order within 15 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 3, 2010

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-03002-FCD-DAD Document 40 Filed 08/03/10 Page 6 of 6