Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02646/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02646-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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

----oo0oo----

CHARLES H. LEWIS and JANE W.

LEWIS,

NO. CIV. S-03-2646 WBS KJM

Plaintiffs and 

counter-defendants,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO AMEND

ROBERT D. RUSSELL; et al., 

Defendants and

cross-defendants.

 

AND RELATED COUNTER, CROSS, 

AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS.

 

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs and counter-defendants Charles H. Lewis and

Jane W. Lewis (“the Lewises”) brought this action under the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., for recovery of costs

incurred removing hazardous substances from real property. The

Lewises as well as defendants and third-party plaintiffs The

Davis Center, LLC; Emily Stover, individually and as Trustee of

Case 2:03-cv-02646-WBS-AC Document 195 Filed 08/08/07 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

This action is currently stayed pursuant to Magistrate 1

Judge Hollows’ order of April 14, 2005. However, concurrent with

this order, the court grants the motion filed by the Lewises

seeking to lift the stay, for limited purposes relating to this

motion.

2

the Stover Family Trust, and as Personal Representative for

Melvin Stover (deceased); and Richard Albert Stinchfield,

individually and as Trustee of the Robert S. Stinchfield Separate

Real Property Trust, and as Trustee of the Barbara Ellen

Stinchfield Testamentary Trust (dissolved), (collectively, “the

Landlords”) now seek to amend the complaint, counter-claims,

cross-claims and third-party complaints to name additional

defendants and assert claims against those newly named

defendants.1

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The Landlords are the current and former landlords of a

shopping center located in Davis, California (“the Property”). 

Defendant and cross-defendant Robert Russell operated a dry

cleaning store at the Property from 1964 to 1971. During his

occupancy of the property, and concurrent with his operation of

the store, Mr. Russell used the chemical perchloroethylene (PCE). 

Several decades later, environmental investigation of the

property revealed PCE contamination in surrounding soil and

groundwater. Mr. Russell was named as one of the responsible

parties by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to

clean up the site. On December 9, 2003, the Lewises (also dry

cleaner operators at Davis Center) brought this action against a

variety of defendants, including the Robert Russell, the

Landlords, and others, seeking contribution for the costs of

Case 2:03-cv-02646-WBS-AC Document 195 Filed 08/08/07 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

In arguing in favor of amendment, the moving parties in 2

their motion mistakenly rely on Rule 15(a)’s more liberal

standard.

3

clean-up of the contamination.

II. Discussion

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that leave to amend “‘shall be freely given when justice

so requires.’” Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir.

1999) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, “[o]nce the

district court ha[s] filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 which establishe[s] a

timetable for amending pleadings that rule’s standards

control[].” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Because the court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order

prohibited further amendments to the pleadings without leave of

the court for good cause shown under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16(b), the moving parties must demonstrate “good cause”

for amendment. (June 2, 2004 Order.) “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good 2

cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

seeking the amendment.” Id. at 609. Generally, “[c]arelessness

or oversight is not compatible with a finding of diligence and

provides no reason to grant relief.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice,

§ 16.14[1][b] (3d ed. 2003) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607-09). 

Additionally, although the focus of the inquiry is on the moving

party’s reasons for seeking modification of the scheduling order,

“the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the

Case 2:03-cv-02646-WBS-AC Document 195 Filed 08/08/07 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

The court notes that its analysis is not changed by the 3

fact that several parties file jointly, or agree to the proposed

amendments. As this court has previously noted that “‘a mere

stipulation by itself to change dates does not constitute good

cause’ . . . . Likewise, an attempt to obtain a stipulation does

not constitute good cause.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186

F.R.D. 605, 609 n.6 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (citation omitted).

In addition to the fact that no party opposes this 4

motion, counsel indicated at the hearing on this matter that they

served courtesy copies on the three proposed defendants, and no

objections have been filed.

4

modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion.”3

Id.

In this case, the moving parties seek to amend the

complaint, counter-claims, cross-claims, and third-party

complaints to name as new defendants the dry cleaning equipment

manufacturers, and would assert against those manufacturers

federal CERCLA claims as well as related state law claims. (Mot.

to Amend 4.) The moving parties were aware of the names of the

manufacturers that were disclosed in the Rule 26(a) initial

disclosures approximately three years ago. However, on April 14,

2005, the case was stayed pending mediation discussions, thus the

litigation is still in its early stages. Although the parties

have filed answers, as well as counter, cross, and third party

complaints (and answers thereto), discovery has not begun. 

Moreover, because the case is still in its infancy, there is no

reason to believe (and no party argues) that any of the proposed

new defendants will be prejudiced in any way by their late

addition.4

Finally, when asked at the hearing on this motion to

explain about the three year delay, counsel explained that they

remained unsure about whether a viable cause of action existed

Case 2:03-cv-02646-WBS-AC Document 195 Filed 08/08/07 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

5

against the manufacturers. It was not until the Supreme Court

issued its decision in June of 2007 in United States v. Atlantic

Research Corporation that the scope of liability under CERCLA

became clear, and counsel became confident that a viable cause of

action could be maintained. 127 S.Ct. 2331, 2336 (holding that

potentially responsible parties may recover costs from other

potentially responsible parties under CERCLA).

Because the moving parties have shown “good cause” for

why they are seeking an amendment at this late time, and because

it does not appear that prejudice will result from allowing the

proposed amendment, the court will grant the motion to amend. 

Johnson 975 F.2d at 607-08. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the litigation stay

imposed by the April 14, 2005 Order of Settlement Process be, and

the same hereby is, lifted for the limited purposes of (1)

permitting the Lewises and the Landlords to bring this motion (2)

allowing other parties presently in the case to file any crossclaims against the new defendants, and (3) permitting the new

defendants to respond to those pleadings. In all other respects

the stay shall remain in effect until further order of the

assigned Magistrate Judge or this court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Lewises’ and the

Landlords’ motion for leave to amend be, and the same hereby is,

GRANTED, for the limited purpose of naming additional defendants

and asserting claims against those defendants. The Lewises shall

file their second amended complaint, and the Landlords shall file 

their amended third party complaint, within thirty days of the

date of this order.

Case 2:03-cv-02646-WBS-AC Document 195 Filed 08/08/07 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

Within ninety days of the date of this order, the

parties shall file a report with the assigned Magistrate Judge

addressing the time and conditions upon which the stay of April

14, 2005 shall be lifted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 7, 2007

Case 2:03-cv-02646-WBS-AC Document 195 Filed 08/08/07 Page 6 of 6