Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE: Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing,

Sales Practices, and Products Liability

Litigation.

_________________________________

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

Eugene Thomas Stanley, 

CV 10-692-FJM.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. MDL 09-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff Eugene Thomas Stanley’s motion for leave to file a

first amended complaint (doc. 551) and defendants’ response (doc. 595). Plaintiff did not

file a reply. Plaintiff moves for leave to file an untimely amended complaint, and to relate

the amendments back to the date of the filing of the original complaint. Plaintiff seeks to add

manufacturer and packager Botanical Laboratories, Inc. and retailer HEB Grocery Company,

LP, or alternatively, H.E. Butt Grocery Company. Because this motion was not filed by Lead

Counsel, and because plaintiff has not shown good cause to modify the Rule 16 Scheduling

Order, we deny the motion for leave to amend. 

First, this motion was not filed by plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel, nor apparently approved

by Lead Counsel, as required by Case Management Order #1 (doc. 182). We have reminded

plaintiffs of the importance of this requirement once before (doc. 510). As the deadlines for

class action certification and Daubert motions draw closer, we emphasize compliance with

our case management orders. 

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 673 Filed 08/10/10 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 -

Second, plaintiff filed this motion on June 28, 2010, over two months after the April

15, 2010 deadline set by the Rule 16 Scheduling Order for motions to amend or join

additional parties, including retailers (doc. 183). Because the deadline has passed, the Rule

15, Fed. R. Civ. P. standard for amending a complaint does not apply. Instead, plaintiff must

show good cause for modifying the scheduling order, pursuant to Rule 16(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ.

P. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 605 (9th Cir. 1992). We may

modify the order only “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party

seeking the extension.” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087

(9th Cir. 2002). When the party seeking modification is not diligent, “the inquiry should end

and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Id.

Plaintiff has not shown that he acted diligently to comply with the order, and thus

there is no good cause for modification. Plaintiff filed his complaint on January 28, 2010,

and his case was transferred to the MDL docket on March 24, 2010. Plaintiff offers no

explanation for why Botanical and HEB Grocery Company, LP were not identified before

April 15, 2010. We thus see no reason why the deadline could not have been met. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an

amended complaint (doc. 551).

DATED this 9th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 673 Filed 08/10/10 Page 2 of 2