Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00315/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00315-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (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

1 All further references to a “Rule” are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

RICK EATON,

NO. CIV. S-07-315 FCD KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARK J. SIEMENS, an individual

and in his capacity as Chief

of Police, CARLOS A. URRUTIA,

an individual and in his

capacity as City Manager, CITY

OF ROCKLIN, a public

municipality and public

entity, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Rick Eaton’s

(“plaintiff”) motion for leave to file an amended complaint

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).1 Plaintiff

seeks to amend his complaint to allege additional facts relating

to certain existing claims, to correct certain errors in the

Case 2:07-cv-00315-MCE-CKD Document 85 Filed 06/12/08 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 Defendants are the City of Rocklin (the “City”), Mark

J. Siemens (“Siemens”), Chief of Police, and Carlos A. Urrutia

(“Urrutia”), City Manager (collectively, “defendants”).

3 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

4 Although filed on February 16, 2007, this action was

not scheduled until March 2008 due to the court’s resolution of

(continued...)

2

complaint and to restate his “Whistleblowing” claim under the

California Labor Code as three separate and distinct claims under

the Labor Code. (See Proposed FAC, Docket #80-2.) Defendants2

oppose the motion, arguing (1) the motion is procedurally

defective in that Rule 16(b), rather than Rule 15(a), governs the

motion, and (2) if even the court construes the motion under Rule

16(b), plaintiff has failed to show “good cause” to permit

amendment of the complaint. 

For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES

plaintiff’s motion as procedurally defective or alternatively on

the merits, under Rule 16(b), for failure to demonstrate

diligence in moving to amend.3

Once the court has entered a pretrial scheduling order

pursuant to Rule 16, the standards of Rule 16 rather than Rule 15

govern amendment of the pleadings in the first instance. See

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th

Cir. 1992); Eckert Cold Storage, Inc. v. Behl, 943 F. Supp. 1230,

1232-33 (E.D. Cal. 1996). On March 18, 2008, this court entered

a pretrial scheduling order which expressly included citation to

Rule 16 and the requirement to show good cause to justify

amendment of the pleadings.4 (Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

Case 2:07-cv-00315-MCE-CKD Document 85 Filed 06/12/08 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

4(...continued)

defendants’ motion to dismiss and the resulting grant of

interlocutory appeal of the court’s denial of the motion. (Mem.

& Order, filed Aug. 10, 2007). The Ninth Circuit ultimately

denied permission to appeal on January 24, 2008. (Docket #76.)

After consideration of the parties’ amended joint status report,

filed February 22, 2008, the court issued its pretrial scheduling

order on March 18, 2008.

3

Order, filed Mar. 18, 2008, stating “No further joinder of

parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of

court, good cause having been shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b);

[Mammoth Recreations]”.) Here, like in Mammoth Recreations,

plaintiff simply seeks an order permitting the filing of the

amended complaint without moving for relief under Rule 16 or

demonstrating that the Rule’s requirements are met. Mammoth

Recreations, 975 F.2d at 610 (“A scheduling order is not a

frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly

disregarded by counsel without peril . . . The district court’s

decision to honor the terms of its binding scheduling order does

not simply exalt procedural technicalities over the merits of

[the plaintiff’s] case.”) (internal quotations omitted). As

such, plaintiff’s motion is properly denied as procedurally

defective.

However, even were the court to consider the motion as a de

facto motion pursuant to Rule 16, plaintiff has failed to

demonstrate good cause to permit amendment of the complaint. The

good cause requirement of Rule 16 primarily considers the

diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The pretrial

scheduling order can only be modified “if it cannot reasonably be

met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 

Case 2:07-cv-00315-MCE-CKD Document 85 Filed 06/12/08 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

Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d at 609. When evaluating whether a

party was diligent, the Ninth Circuit has determined that “the

focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for

modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should

end.” Id. at 610. 

When the proposed modification is an amendment to the

pleadings, the moving party may establish good cause by showing

“(1) that [he or she] was diligent in assisting the court in

creating a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [his or her]

noncompliance with a rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur,

notwithstanding [his or her] diligent efforts to comply, because

of the development of matters which could not have been

reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16

scheduling conference; and (3) that [he or she] was diligent in

seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent

that [he or she] could not comply with the order.” Jackson v.

Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)(citations

omitted). Only after the moving party has demonstrated diligence

under Rule 16 does the court apply the standard under Rule 15 to

determine whether the amendment was proper. See Mammoth

Recreations, 975 F.2d at 608; Eckert Cold Storage, 943 F. Supp.

at 1232 n.3.

Here, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he acted

diligently in moving to amend. Plaintiff’s requested amendments

pertain to facts that he was well-aware of at the time of the

filing of the original complaint on February 16, 2007. Indeed,

plaintiff’s additional allegations concern, for example, a letter

he wrote almost 14 years ago, his grand jury testimony which took

Case 2:07-cv-00315-MCE-CKD Document 85 Filed 06/12/08 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

place 8 years ago and a sexual harassment investigation which

took place 7 years ago. Plaintiff offers no justification for

why his allegations pertaining to these events could not have

been asserted in his original complaint. 

Moreover, plaintiff also fails to justify his delay in

moving to amend. Despite his knowledge of the subject facts at

the time he filed the complaint in this action, plaintiff waited

one year, until February 18, 2008, to request that defendants

stipulate to amendment of the complaint. Defendants informed

plaintiff on March 10, 2008 that they would not stipulate; yet,

plaintiff did not file the instant motion until April 30, 2008,

seven weeks later.

Under these circumstances, plaintiff has failed to satisfy

the threshold “diligence” requirement of Rule 16, and thus, his

motion must be DENIED. As a result, the court need not reach the

parties’ arguments as to whether the substantive amendments are

proper or futile under Rule 15.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 12, 2008. 

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:07-cv-00315-MCE-CKD Document 85 Filed 06/12/08 Page 5 of 5