Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01034/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01034-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nkosazana U. Boyd, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Patrick R. Donahoe, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV13-1034 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Pro Se Plaintiff Nkosazana Boyd has filed a motion for leave to file a second 

amended complaint and a notice of dismissal. Docs. 41, 47. Defendants oppose the 

motion and the notice. Docs. 42, 47. The Court will deny the motion to amend and 

disregard the notice of dismissal. 

A. Motion to Amend. 

 Rule 16 provides that deadlines established in a case management order may “be 

modified only for good cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). “Good cause” exists when a 

deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Comm. Notes (1983 Am.). Thus, “Rule 16(b)’s 

‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 

amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 

1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Where that party has not been diligent, the inquiry ends and 

the motion must be denied. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 

2002); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

Case 2:13-cv-01034-DGC Document 49 Filed 03/27/15 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 

 In this case, the Court’s Case Management Order established a deadline for 

amending pleadings: 

2. Deadline for Joining Parties, Amending Pleadings, and Filing 

Supplemental Pleadings. The deadline for joining parties, amending 

pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings is 60 days from the date of 

this Order. 

Doc. 20 at 1 (emphasis in original). The order was entered on August 15, 2014, creating 

an amendment deadline of October 14, 2014. In addition, the Case Management Order 

contained this explicit warning: 

9. The Deadlines Are Real. The parties are advised that the 

Court intends to enforce the deadlines set forth in this Order, and should 

plan their litigation activities accordingly. 

 

Id. at 5. The Court called the parties’ attention to this warning at the Rule 16 conference 

and cautioned that the Court would not be inclined to grant extensions. Thus, Plaintiff 

was fully aware of the deadline for amending pleadings and the Court’s intent to enforce 

that deadline. 

 The Court’s clear warning notwithstanding, Plaintiff’s motion to amend was filed 

almost five months after the amendment deadline (Doc. 41), more than 18 months after 

this case was filed (Doc. 1), after the close of discovery (Doc. 35), and shortly before 

summary judgment motions were due (Doc. 35). The motion does not explain this delay 

or show good cause for extending the amendment deadline. The motion also fails to 

comply with LRCiv 15.1. 

 B. Notice of Dismissal.

 Plaintiff seeks to dismiss this case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

Doc. 47. Because Defendants have answered, that rule does not apply and Plaintiff may 

dismiss only with leave of Court or by stipulation of the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 

Plaintiff’s notice is therefore ineffective. This case remains active. 

 The Court advises Plaintiff that it will not dismiss this case without prejudice. 

Case 2:13-cv-01034-DGC Document 49 Filed 03/27/15 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 

This case has been pending for more than 18 months, discovery has closed, and 

Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 43. It would be manifestly 

unfair to dismiss this case without prejudice after Defendants have invested considerable 

effort in getting it to the point of summary judgment motions. 

 Plaintiff is advised that she must respond to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment within 30 days of the motion having been served. LRCiv 56.1(d). Plaintiff 

must also comply fully with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and 

LRCiv 56.1. Failure to file a timely response or comply with these rules may result in the 

Court’s granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 41) is denied, Plaintiff’s 

notice of dismissal (Doc. 47) is ineffective, and Plaintiff must respond to Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment as set forth above. 

 Dated this 27th day of March, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-01034-DGC Document 49 Filed 03/27/15 Page 3 of 3