Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00820/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00820-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMIL LAWRENCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00820-MEJ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

AMEND COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 27

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Emil Lawrence’s Motion to Amend Complaint

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a). Dkt. No. 27. Rule 15(a) states that a 

court should freely grant leave to amend when justice so requires. However, once a district court 

has issued a scheduling order, Rule 16 controls. The scheduling order limits the time during 

which a party can amend its pleadings. At that point, any schedule modification to allow pleading 

amendments must be based on good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 

232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Good cause requires diligence by the moving party. A 

modification of the pretrial schedule would be merited if the deadline could not be met “despite 

the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 

F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

Under the Court’s Case Management Order, the deadline for seeking leave to file amended 

pleadings was November 17, 2014, nearly one month before Plaintiff filed the present motion. 

Dkt. 19. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not sought to modify the scheduling order, Plaintiff 

cannot amend his pleadings. Further, Plaintiff makes no effort to explain his lack of diligence in 

seeking to amend. For example, although Plaintiff seeks leave to add defendants, he has been 

aware of their names since July 31, 2014, when Defendant responded to discovery, yet he does not 

Case 3:14-cv-00820-TSH Document 31 Filed 12/29/14 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

state why he could not add them sooner. Thus, as Plaintiff’s motion is untimely pursuant to the 

May 22, 2014 Case Management Order, and he has failed to explain his lack of diligence under 

Rule 16, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 29, 2014

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00820-TSH Document 31 Filed 12/29/14 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMIL LAWRENCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00820-MEJ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 12/29/2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Emil Lawrence

77 Van Ness Avenue, Floor One, Unit 1304

San Francisco, CA 94012 

Dated: 12/29/2014

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Chris Nathan, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable MARIA-ELENA JAMES

Case 3:14-cv-00820-TSH Document 31 Filed 12/29/14 Page 3 of 3