Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00213/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00213-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

G&M FARMS INC., 

a California Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

E.I. du Pont, dba CORTEVA 

AGRISCIENCE, and Does 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00213 JLT BAM

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE 

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Docs. 43, 50)

 G&M Farms Inc. alleges that it suffered losses caused by the application of Fontelis

fungicide to its blueberry plants, including the Snow Chaser variety. G&M Farms seeks for leave 

to file a fourth amended complaint. (Doc. 43.) The Court referred the motion to the magistrate 

judge for appropriate action. (Doc. 45.)

The magistrate judge found that G&M Farms did not demonstrate “the requisite diligence 

to support modification of the Scheduling Conference Order.” (Doc. 50 at 7.) The magistrate 

judge observed that “although G&M Farms aided the Court in creating a scheduling order, it is 

not evident that the present need to amend was caused by matters that were not, and could not be, 

foreseeable at the time the Scheduling Conference Order was entered.” (Id.) For example, the 

magistrate judge found “G&M Farms has not indicated that the underlying facts and causes of 

action that it seeks to include in the fourth amended complaint were not known or knowable when 

Case 1:24-cv-00213-JLT-BAM Document 51 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 2
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

it initiated this action in January 2024.” (Id.) Furthermore, the magistrate judge found G&M 

Farms “had multiple opportunities to amend its complaint prior to expiration of the relevant 

amendment deadline as evidenced by filing both a first amended complaint and seeking leave to 

file a second amended complaint (now identified as the third amended complaint).” (Id.) 

Therefore, the magistrate judge found there was not good cause for amending the scheduling 

order and recommended the motion to amend be denied. (Id. at 7-8.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that 

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 50 at 8.) The Court also informed the parties the 

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to 

challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 

F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither party filed objections and the time to do so has passed.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 

Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 3, 2024 (Doc. 50) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. G&M Farms’ motion for leave of court to file fourth amended complaint (Doc. 43) 

is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00213-JLT-BAM Document 51 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 2