Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02951/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02951-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1

Case No. 5:13-cv-02951-PSG

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SUSAN ROCKE and JEFFREY ROCKE,

 

Plaintiffs,

v.

PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:13-cv-02951-PSG

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

AMEND

(Re: Docket No. 88)

PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY, 

 

Third Party Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM C. MEFFORD, ET AL.,

Third Party Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Third Party Defendant Groza Construction, Inc. moves for leave to file a first amended 

third party complaint to add current Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff Pebble Beach Co. as a 

Case 5:13-cv-02951-PSG Document 107 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 5:13-cv-02951-PSG

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

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

For the Northern District of California

Third Party Defendant and add causes of action for reformation and declaratory relief.1 Because 

Groza Construction has shown good cause, its motion is GRANTED.

The court’s case scheduling order set Aug. 18, 2014 as the deadline for joining additional 

parties and amending the pleadings.2 Groza Construction’s motion comes well outside that 

deadline, and so under Rule 16(b)(4), Groza Construction must show “good cause” to modify the 

scheduling order. The “‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party 

seeking the amendment.”3 

Here, Groza Construction acted diligently in seeking the amendment and so good cause 

plainly exists. Groza Construction deposed Steven Aitchison, Senior Vice President of Capital 

Improvements at PBC, on August 27, 2015, and learned that when he signed the contract between 

Groza Construction and PBC, he believed the contract required Groza to indemnify PBC only for 

Groza Construction’s negligence, not PBC’s negligence or anyone else’s.4 Groza Construction 

already knew that Brian Groza, Groza Construction’s 30(b)(6) witness on the contract, also 

believed that this was the meaning of the indemnity clause.5 When Groza Construction learned 

that its mistaken belief as to the meaning of the contract was mutual, it promptly moved for leave 

to add PBC as a third party defendant and add claims against PBC for reformation of the contract 

based on mutual mistake and declaratory relief that the indemnity provision as written is void and 

severable.6 Put differently, the facts underlying Groza Construction’s new claims were presented 

for the first time at Aitchison’s Aug. 27, 2015 deposition, Groza Construction received the 

deposition transcript on Sept. 10, 2015, and Groza Construction filed its motion on Sept. 11, 2015.7 

 

1

See Docket No. 88.

2

See Docket No. 39 at 1.

3

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

4

See Docket No. 88 at 4.

5

See id.

6

See Docket No. 97 at 7.

7

See id.

Case 5:13-cv-02951-PSG Document 107 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 5:13-cv-02951-PSG

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

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

For the Northern District of California

Given this speedy pace, Groza Construction acted diligently in moving for leave and thus satisfied 

Rule 16(b)(4)’s good cause requirement for modifying the scheduling order. 

PBC argues that there is a presumption that it will be prejudiced by the amendments, 

because Groza Construction did not seek leave to amend until late in the case.8PBC also argues 

that the amended claims will require significant discovery.9 However, as discussed above, the 

court finds that Groza Construction acted diligently in seeking amendment. As for discovery, fact 

discovery remains open for more than two months, which should provide the parties with sufficient 

time for conducting discovery on the amended claims.

Groza Construction’s request for leave to amend is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2015 

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

8

See Docket No. 93 at 15.

9

See id.

Case 5:13-cv-02951-PSG Document 107 Filed 10/27/15 Page 3 of 3