Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00233/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00233-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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 matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY HER; RACHEL YANG, )

) 2:08-cv-233-GEB

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

CAREER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT )

CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On August 27, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to

amend their complaint; specifically Plaintiffs seek to add a state

claim for disability discrimination under California’s Fair Employment

and Housing Act. Defendant counters Plaintiffs have failed to

demonstrate the requisite good cause needed to amend the Status 

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order (“Scheduling Order”). (D. Opp’n at 3:7-

28.) 

Case 2:08-cv-00233-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 10/08/08 Page 1 of 3
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

Although Plaintiffs did not specifically request that the

court modify its Scheduling Order and merely moved to amend their

Complaint, the motion is treated as a de facto motion to amend the “No

further [ ] amendments” language in the Scheduling Order issued on

April 23, 2008. Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard governs the

decision whether to amend a Scheduling Order issued under Rule 16 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This “standard primarily

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The

district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

[amendment].” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609

(9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). 

Plaintiffs’ assert they have been diligent, since their

present counsel “ has only been employed [] for seven weeks and just

learned of [Plaintiff’s former counsel’s] oversight in not previously

pleading [the state] disability discrimination claim.” (Pl. Mot. at

4:22-25.) However, Plaintiffs concede that “the facts supporting the

[state] disability discrimination claim [they seek to add] are already

part of the complaint,” (Pl. Mot. At 4:19-20), and fail to provide an

explanation as to why the alleged oversight of Plaintiffs’ earlier

counsel is sufficient to satisfy Plaintiffs’ burden under the good

cause standard. See generally, Tapia v. Woods, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

80025 *2-6 (E.D. Cal. 2007)(holding reassignment of an action to a new

attorney in the same office does not constitute good cause). 

Generally, [t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, and

Court’s scheduling orders are not to be set aside or disregarded

because an attorney new to the case has different ideas 

. . .” Id. at *4. 

Case 2:08-cv-00233-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 10/08/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

If Plaintiffs’ former attorney failed to include the claim

in the complaint or to seek to add it by amendment because of

carelessness, “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of

diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975

F.2d at 609. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is

denied.

Dated: October 7, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:08-cv-00233-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 10/08/08 Page 3 of 3