Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01358/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01358-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

1

Case No.: 5:14-cv-01358-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND 

TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PIYUSH GUPTA,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 

MACHINES CORPORATION (IBM),

Defendant.

Case No. 5:14-cv-01358-EJD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT AND TO REMAND 

ACTION TO STATE COURT

Re: Dkt. No. 40

Presently before the court in this employment action is a motion for leave to file an 

amended complaint and a motion to remand the action to state court, filed by Plaintiff Piyush 

Gupta (“Plaintiff”). See Dkt. No. 40 (“Mot.”). Defendant International Business Machines 

Corporation (“IBM”) has filed a written opposition to the motion. See Dkt. No. 46. Plaintiff 

subsequently filed a reply. See Dkt. No. 47. 

Federal jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This matter is suitable for 

decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b). Accordingly, the hearing 

scheduled for July 30, 2015 pertaining to these motions is VACATED. Having carefully 

considered the pleadings filed by the parties, the court finds, concludes and orders as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint arises under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 15(a). Leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 is generally 

granted with liberality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave when justice 

so requires.”); Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Leave need not be granted, however, where the amendment of the complaint would cause the 

Case 5:14-cv-01358-EJD Document 48 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No.: 5:14-cv-01358-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND 

TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates 

undue delay. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 

561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint that adds two IBMemployee defendants as necessary parties and alleges two additional causes of action. Mot. at 4. 

2. However, as a threshold matter, a motion for leave to amend the complaint must be 

timely. “When a party seeks to amend a pleading after the pretrial scheduling order’s deadline for 

amending the pleadings has expired, the moving party must satisfy the ‘good cause’ standard of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which provides that ‘a schedule may be modified only 

for good cause and with the judge’s consent,’ rather than the liberal standard of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 15(a).” In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 

(9th Cir. 2013). The “good cause” standard pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) “primarily considers the 

diligence of the party seeking the amendment,” and the focus of the inquiry “is upon the moving 

party’s reasons for seeking modification . . . if that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” 

Id. Good cause may be found to exist where the moving party shows, for example, that it: (1) 

diligently assisted the court in recommending and creating a workable scheduling order (see In re 

San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel fire Litig., 111 F.3d 220, 228 (1st Cir. 1997)), (2) is unable to 

comply with the deadlines contained in the scheduling order due to issues not reasonably 

foreseeable at the time of the scheduling order (see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 

F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)), and (3) was diligent in seeking an amendment once the party 

reasonably knew that it could not comply with the scheduling order (see Eckert Cold Storage, Inc. 

v. Behl, 943 F. Supp. 1230, 1233 (E.D. Cal. 1996); see also Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 

605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)). 

3. Here, the court’s scheduling order issued on August 5, 2014 provides: “[T]he 

deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or other amendments to the pleadings, is sixty days 

after entry of this order.” Dkt. No. 18 at 1. Thus, the deadline to amend the complaint was 

October 5, 2014. While the court subsequently issued orders modifying case management 

Case 5:14-cv-01358-EJD Document 48 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No.: 5:14-cv-01358-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND 

TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

deadlines, no subsequent order modified the deadline for amending the pleadings. See Dkt. Nos. 

21, 28. 

4. In order to proceed with the instant motion, Plaintiff must first show good cause for 

modifying the court’s deadline to amend the complaint. He attempts to do so by recounting the 

following procedural facts. Plaintiff contends that when IBM took his deposition on December 9, 

2014, he revealed information about his employment at IBM that he later learned could result in 

an action against two IBM employees. See Decl. of Piyush Gupta, Dkt. No. 40-1, at ¶ 2. On 

January 2, 2015, Plaintiff informed IBM of his intent to file an amended complaint, but decided 

not to file before the mediation so as not to derail settlement negotiations. See Decl. of Tomas M. 

Flores, Dkt. No. 40-2, at ¶ 2. Mediation took place on May 27, 2015. See id. at ¶ 3. While no 

settlement agreement was reached, the parties agreed not to take any action until after June 1, 2015 

to provide IBM with an opportunity to consider Plaintiff’s settlement offer. See id. Plaintiff 

contends that IBM ultimately did not respond to his settlement offer; thus on June 2, 2015, 

Plaintiff informed IBM of his intent to file the amended complaint and IBM filed a motion for 

summary judgment. See id. at ¶ 4; see also Dkt. No. 31. On June 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to shorten time to hear Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, after 

which the court denied Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time and instructed Plaintiff to file a motion to 

amend as a separate docket entry. See Dkt. Nos. 37, 39. After a motion to shorten time was 

denied, Plaintiff then filed the instant motion on June 16, 2015. See Dkt. Nos. 39, 40. 

5. Although Plaintiff believes the above-recitation demonstrates diligence in seeking 

to amend the complaint, the court does not agree. Addressing first the apparent revelation during 

Plaintiff’s deposition, what is left unexplained is why Plaintiff waited until that time to understand 

that he may have claims against two additional defendants. Given his ability to testify about them 

under oath, Plaintiff was undeniably aware of the identities of the IBM employees from the 

inception of this case, and was in complete control of all information needed to bring claims 

against them since that time. “Late amendments to assert new theories are not reviewed favorably 

Case 5:14-cv-01358-EJD Document 48 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No.: 5:14-cv-01358-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND 

TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

when the facts and the theory have been known to the party seeking amendment since the 

inception of the cause of action.” Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Sw. Marine, 194 F.3d 1009, 1016-17

(9th Cir. 1999). In addition, while “[c]ourts routinely allow parties to amend their pleadings after 

new information comes to light during discovery,” this only applies if the information is, actually,

new. M.H. v. County of Alameda, No. 11-2868 CW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168412, at *9, 2012 

WL 5835732 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2012). Plaintiff has not shown that whatever came out during 

his deposition constitutes new evidence. 

6. Second, Plaintiff was not diligent in seeking amendment in any event. Plaintiff 

must now live with the strategic decision he made to file the motion to amend after mediation. 

While the court understands he did this to prevent the motion from discouraging settlement, that 

intent does not constitute due diligence at this advanced stage of litigation. Discovery and the 

designation of experts have been completed, and IBM’s motion for summary judgment is pending. 

Moreover, in April 2015, this court issued a pretrial order providing dates for a jury trial scheduled 

in January 2016. See Dkt. No. 29. Allowing Plaintiff the ability to amend now would circumvent 

all of these prior efforts to progress the case. Indeed, since the addition of one of the IBM 

employees would destroy diversity, Plaintiff’s companion motion to remand would necessarily be 

granted, forcing the parties to commence the action from the beginning. 

7. Plaintiff also argues that permitting amendment and thereafter remanding the case 

to state court serves the interest of judicial efficiency since all of his claims can then be asserted in 

one case rather than two. That may be true. It is not, however, a valid basis to find diligence 

under Rule 16. 

8. In sum, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for modifying the deadline of 

October 5, 2014 to amend the pleadings. As the Ninth Circuit has stated, “[a] scheduling order is 

not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel 

without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. Since the deadline to amend the complaint has long 

passed, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is untimely. Accordingly, the 

Case 5:14-cv-01358-EJD Document 48 Filed 07/22/15 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No.: 5:14-cv-01358-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND 

TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

motion is DENIED. With that result, the motion to remand is DENIED AS MOOT. 

9. The hearing scheduled for July 30, 2015 pertaining to the instant motions is 

VACATED. The hearing scheduled on the same date pertaining to IBM’s motion for summary 

judgment remains on calendar. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015 

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-01358-EJD Document 48 Filed 07/22/15 Page 5 of 5