Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01846/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01846-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

FAYE VADEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LINN STAR TRANSFER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01846-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

AMEND COMPLAINT AND DENYING 

MOTION TO ALTER SCHEDULING 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 37, 39, 40

Pending before the Court are several motions filed by Plaintiffs Faye Vaden and Alma 

Jackson related to the Court’s scheduling order in this action: (1) a motion for leave to amend the 

complaint after the deadline, see Dkt. No. 37; (2) a motion to modify the case schedule, see Dkt. 

No. 40; and (3) a motion to expedite the hearing on both motions, see Dkt. No. 39. The Court held 

a case management conference on October 8, 2019, at which it heard argument on these motions 

and discussed the current case schedule. See Dkt. No. 44. The Court also permitted Plaintiffs to 

file a supplementary declaration in support of these motions. See Dkt. Nos. 46. 48. Having 

carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court DENIES the motions.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 5, 2019, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants Linn Star Transfer, Inc. 

and Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc., alleging that Defendants’ negligent manufacturing and 

installation of a gas dryer led to a gas leak in Plaintiffs’ home. See Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. A. Plaintiffs 

allege that the gas leak was caused by both a product defect and Linn Star’s failure to properly 

tighten the dryer’s gas line connector during installation. Id at 4. Defendants removed this action 

from state court on April 5, 2019, based on diversity jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 1.

On July 16, 2019, the Court held an initial case management conference, at which it 

Case 4:19-cv-01846-HSG Document 49 Filed 10/16/19 Page 1 of 5
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

discussed the anticipated schedule for this case. See Dkt. No. 24. Neither party objected to the 

proposed dates, and on July 17, 2019, the Court issued a scheduling order incorporating those 

dates. See Dkt. No. 25. In the order, the Court set September 14, 2019, as the deadline to amend 

the pleadings. See id. Two weeks after the deadline, on October 1, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion 

for leave to file an amended complaint to add three defendants: Home Depot, who sold the dryer

and its “installation kit”; and individuals Dyshun Mitchell and Nicolaus Zapata from Jens 

Trucking LLC, who performed the installation. See Dkt. No. 37 at 6; Dkt. No. 46 at ¶¶ 3–4, 7–10. 

Two days later, on October 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the current scheduling 

order, and to expedite the hearing on these motions. See Dkt. Nos. 39, 40. In all three motions, 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Ms. Wendy H. Chau, explains that she was “focused on her other trial cases 

from July 20, 2019, to September 16, 2019”; was “busy,” so relied on co-counsel; and therefore,

missed the deadline in good faith. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 37 at 3, 5. Ms. Chau further claims that she 

will be unable to meet the future deadlines set in this case based on obligations she has in other 

cases. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 40-1 at ¶¶ 9, 11.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that the district court must issue a 

scheduling order that limits the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete 

discovery, and file motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Once in place, “[a] schedule may be 

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good 

cause” requirement of Rule 16 “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 

amendment.” See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

“The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the 

diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. (quotation omitted). “Although the existence or 

degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny 

a motion . . . [i]f [the] party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Leave to Amend

Plaintiffs present little justification for failing to amend the complaint by the September 14 

Case 4:19-cv-01846-HSG Document 49 Filed 10/16/19 Page 2 of 5
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

deadline. Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledges that she simply “neglected to do so” as she was 

preoccupied with trial in another case, which ended on September 13. See Dkt. No. 37 at 5; Dkt. 

No. 37-1 at ¶¶ 2, 10–15. Ms. Chau also casts blame on her co-counsel, Mr. David S. Ratner, who 

she explains assisted with the case through mediation on September 16.1 Id. As counsel of record 

in this action, however, Ms. Chau nevertheless has an independent responsibility to her clients. 

Cf. California Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.3 (“‘[R]easonable diligence’ shall mean that a 

lawyer acts with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and does not neglect or 

disregard, or unduly delay a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer.”).

Moreover, Plaintiffs acknowledge that they were on notice of the three parties that they

now seek to add as defendants well in advance of the deadline to amend. See Dkt. No. 37-1 at ¶ 9. 

On July 8, 2019, Linn Star’s initial disclosures identified both Dyshun Mitchell and Nicolaus 

Zapata as employees of Jens Trucking, LLC, who performed the dryer installation. See Dkt. No. 

42 at 3. Defendants even noted in the joint case management conference statement, filed July 9, 

2019, that Plaintiffs had not named the installers and installation company in the complaint. Id.; 

see also Dkt. No. 23 at 3, 5. Additionally, Defendants disclosed documents that identified The 

Home Depot, Inc. in the bill of lading, as part of their initial disclosures. Id. Plaintiffs’ own initial 

disclosures listed the landlords as potential witnesses, and included a shipping order form with 

The Home Depot, Inc. as the recipient of both the gas dryer and a “gas dryer inst kit.” See Dkt. 

No. 47-1, Ex. B at ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 47-2, Ex. C.

Plaintiffs do not refute this. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel contends that she did not fully 

understand the significance of Home Depot and its role in this action until she spoke with 

Plaintiffs’ landlord on September 23, 2019, and reviewed the documents he sent to her on 

September 24, 2019. See Dkt. No. 46 at ¶¶ 20–22, 26–27. What Plaintiffs’ counsel fails to 

adequately explain is why she did not follow up with the landlord prior to the deadline to amend 

the complaint.

 

1 Mr. Ratner has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Dkt. No. 32. The motion remains 

pending, however, and the Court has issued an order to show cause why the motion should be 

granted in the absence of evidence that his clients have agreed to discharge him or that withdrawal 

is otherwise warranted. See Dkt. No. 43.

Case 4:19-cv-01846-HSG Document 49 Filed 10/16/19 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Ms. Chau’s unsupported assertion that she had “had trouble getting a hold of the landlord”

for two years—from 2017 to 2019—is neither credible nor consistent with a finding of diligence. 

See id. at ¶¶ 9, 28, 30. Indeed, this argument is belied by counsel’s acknowledgement that she 

“did not think the landlord and Home Deport were much involved or liable” prior to September 

2019, and that further discussions about the landlord ceased when Plaintiffs did not want to add 

him as a defendant to this action. See id. at ¶¶ 7, 10. Plaintiffs’ counsel should not have waited 

until after the deadline to amend to investigate the landlord and Home Depot’s possible 

involvement in this action. The Court is similarly unpersuaded by Plaintiffs’ assertion that the 

parties were focused on mediation rather than further litigating this action. See id. ¶¶ 15–19. As 

the Ninth Circuit has cautioned, “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and 

offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In short, Plaintiffs have failed to 

establish that good cause exists to grant leave to amend the complaint at this late date.

B. Motion to Modify Scheduling Order

Plaintiffs also seek to stay the case or modify the scheduling order. See Dkt. No. 40. As 

an initial matter, Plaintiffs do not propose any alternative dates or modifications. See id. Instead, 

they appear to request that the Court simply vacate all current deadlines. See id. Nor do they

explain with any specificity why a modification is warranted in this case. As with Plaintiffs’ 

motion to amend the complaint, Plaintiffs’ counsel merely indicates that she is overextended with 

trial preparation in other cases. See id. at 3; see also Dkt. No. 40-1 at ¶¶ 3–4, 9, 11. The Court 

does not find that this rises to the level of “good cause” necessary to modify the scheduling order. 

Indeed, Plaintiffs still have two months until the close of discovery, and trial does not begin until 

June 29, 2020. There is ample time remaining to litigate this case under the current schedule.

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:19-cv-01846-HSG Document 49 Filed 10/16/19 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to amend the complaint; DENIES the motion

to modify the case schedule; and DENIES AS MOOT the motion to expedite the hearing on these 

motions. The Court further reminds Plaintiffs’ counsel that she is responsible for familiarizing 

herself and complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the Court’s orders, for 

the duration of this litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/16/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-01846-HSG Document 49 Filed 10/16/19 Page 5 of 5