Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02818/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02818-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LEWIS, LAUREN

TAYLOR, C.L., a minor, and B.L., 

a minor, by and through their guardian

ad litem,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

COUNTY AGENT IAN BAXTER,

COUNTY AGENT N. QUINTEROS,

COUNTY AGENT SUPERVISOR

BENITA JEMISON, COUNTY

AGENT ABIGAIL JOSEPH,

COUNTY AGENT SUPERVISOR

ANTONIA TORRES, COUNTY

AGENT SUPERVISOR ALFREDO

GUARDADO, and COUNTY 

AGENT BROOKE GUILD,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 13-cv-2818-H-JMA

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

[Doc. No. 60] 

On April 14, 2016, the parties moved to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file

a motion for leave to amend the complaint. (Doc. No. 60.) The Court declinesto grant

the motion. 

This case has been pending since November of 2013. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs

filed an amended complaint in August of 2014. (Doc. No. 17.) They also filed a notice

of intent not to amend further on March 25, 2015. (Doc. No. 30.) Plaintiffs have been

on notice of the April 4, 2016 deadline since February 2, 2016. (Doc. No. 49 ¶ 1.) The

deadline has passed. 

- 1 - 13cv2818

Case 3:13-cv-02818-H-JMA Document 63 Filed 04/15/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court has

discretion to extend a deadline for good cause. When the deadline has passed, good

cause requires “excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). New counsel as of

four months ago is not good cause. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ proposed new claims are

separate from the ones in the present complaint, as they involve medical examinations

and different transactions that would unduly complicate this case at this stage. And,

at this point, the parties have done substantial discovery on Plaintiffs’ present claims. 

(See Doc. No. 60 ¶ 5.) 

Accordingly, exercising its discretion, the Court declines to grant the parties’

untimely motion. Plaintiffs can assert the new claims in a separate complaint, which

will be assigned a new case number and proceed separately. The Court notes that the

statute of limitations will not be an issue because Plaintiffs are minors. See Cline v.

Brusett, 661 F.2d 108, 110 (9th Cir. 1981); Cal. Civ. Code § 352(a).1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 15, 2016

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

The Court also declines to move the deadline for lodging the proposed final 1

pretrial conference order. (Doc. No. 58 ¶ 13.) 

- 2 - 13cv2818

Case 3:13-cv-02818-H-JMA Document 63 Filed 04/15/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2