Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02366/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02366-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

----oo0oo----

CHINAR KALSI,

NO. CIV. S-06-2366 WBS GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FORTE SYSTEMS, LLC, FORTE MEDICAL

SYSTEMS, LLC, DION NUGENT

individually and as Owner of

Forte Systems, LLC and FORTE

MEDICAL SYSTEMS, LLC; DOES 1

through 30, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Chinar Kalsi filed this action against

defendants Forte Systems, LLC, Forte Medical Systems, LLC, and

Dion Nugent (“defendants”) alleging harassment, constructive

discharge, discrimination based on gender and national origin,

retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and

breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair

dealing. Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend the complaint to

name Administaff Companies II, L.P. (“Administaff”) as a fourth

defendant. Defendants also seek leave to file a third-party

Case 2:06-cv-02366-WBS-GGH Document 39 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 5
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

complaint against Administaff. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff is a former employee of Forte Systems, LLC

and Forte Medical Systems, LLC (“Forte”), which are both owned by

Nugent. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Beginning in the summer of 2002 and

continuing until plaintiff ended her employment with Forte in

August of 2005, plaintiff alleges that Nugent sexually harassed

her and discriminated against her based on her gender and

national origin. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-27.) Plaintiff alleges that she

began reporting her concerns in November of 2003, but Nugent’s

behavior did not change and ultimately forced her to terminate

her employment with Forte. (Compl. ¶ 56.)

During the time plaintiff worked at Forte, Anthony

Schwartz, a Forte employee, hired Administaff to serve as an

outside human resources company and co-employer of Forte

employees. (Defs.’ Mot. to File Third-Party Compl. 2:22-28, Ex.

1.) Plaintiff alleges that Administaff did nothing to address

her concerns. (Pl.’s Motion to Amend ¶ 6.) 

After filing this lawsuit, plaintiff learned of

Administaff’s role as a “co-employer” and now seeks to name

Administaff as a defendant. Defendants also seek to implead

Administaff as a third-party defendant. Neither party opposes

the other party’s motion. 

II. Discussion

A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that leave to amend “‘shall be freely given when justice

so requires.’” Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir.

Case 2:06-cv-02366-WBS-GGH Document 39 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 5
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 In arguing in favor of amendment, the plaintiff

mistakenly relies on Rule 15(a)’s more liberal standard. 

3

1999) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, “[o]nce the

district court ha[s] filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16[,] which establishe[s] a

timetable for amending pleadings[,] that rule’s standards

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

607-08 (9th Cir. 1992).1 Under Rule 16(b), a party seeking leave

to amend must demonstrate “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). 

On December 12, 2006, this court issued a Status

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order that prohibited further amendments to

the pleadings without leave of the court for good cause as

required by Rule 16(b). (Dec. 12, 2006 Order.) “Rule 16(b)’s

‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the

party seeking the amendment.” Id. at 609. Generally,

“[c]arelessness or oversight is not compatible with a finding of

diligence and provides no reason to grant relief.” 3 Moore’s

Federal Practice, § 16.14[1][b] (3d ed. 2003) (citing Johnson,

975 F.2d at 607-09). Although the focus of the inquiry is on the

moving party’s reasons for seeking modification of the scheduling

order, “the existence or degree of prejudice to the party

opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny

a motion.” Id.

Plaintiff has shown good cause to amend the complaint

to name a new defendant. This action is still in its early

stages and discovery is not set to conclude until February 22,

2008. More importantly, at the time of filing her complaint,

plaintiff was unaware of Administaff’s potential liability in the

Case 2:06-cv-02366-WBS-GGH Document 39 Filed 11/26/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

case and only learned the extent of Administaff’s role during

discovery. These facts show that plaintiff has been diligent in

the management of the case. 

Further, allowing plaintiff to amend her complaint will

not substantially prejudice defendants because they contend that,

if plaintiff prevails, Administaff will be liable to plaintiff

and defendants. Accordingly, because plaintiff has shown “good

cause” and no substantial prejudice will result in allowing the

proposed amendment, this court will grant plaintiff leave to

amend the complaint to name Administaff as a new defendant. 

B. Defendants’ Motion to File a Third-Party Complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 provides: “At any

time after commencement of the action a defending party, as a

third-party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to be

served upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be

liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the

plaintiff’s claim against the third party-plaintiff. . . .” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 14 (emphasis added). 

At the time defendants filed their motion, Administaff

was “not a party to the action;” however, this court’s order will

allow plaintiff to serve her amended summons and complaint,

thereby making Administaff a party in the present action. Once

this occurs, Rule 14, by its clear language, cannot be used by

defendants to implead Administaff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14. However,

defendants are not without recourse because defendants may file a

cross-claim against another under Rule 13(g). Fed. R. Civ. P.

13(g). Accordingly, the court will construe defendants’ motion

as a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint and grant

Case 2:06-cv-02366-WBS-GGH Document 39 Filed 11/26/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

defendants leave to file a cross-complaint once Administaff

becomes a party in this action. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for

leave to amend the complaint and defendants’ motion for leave to

file a cross-complaint against Administaff be, and the same

hereby are, GRANTED. 

DATED: November 26, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-02366-WBS-GGH Document 39 Filed 11/26/07 Page 5 of 5