Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02887/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02887-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BROOKE FANTELLI,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv2887-LAB (DHB)

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’

JOINT MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS AND AMEND ANSWERS

[Docket nos. 46 & 48] 

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.

Defendants.

On August 1, 2014, Defendant United States of America filed a motion to dismiss

Fantelli’s Federal Tort Claims Act claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

(Docket no. 32.) On October 13, 2014, Fantelli’s response in opposition provided evidence

that Fantelli timely and properly exhausted her administrative remedies. (Docket no. 42; see

also Docket no. 47, Douglas Decl.) As a result, the parties filed a joint motion to withdraw

the motion to dismiss. (Docket no. 48.) Also before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to

give Defendant Peters leave to amend his answer, filed October 17, 2014. (Docket no. 46.) 

I. Motion to Withdraw

Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction

on the belief that Fantelli did not comply with the FTCA’s exhaustion requirement under 28

U.S.C. § 2675(a). (Docket no. 32.) But the parties now agree that Fantelli did comply. (See

Docket no. 48.) Based on the evidence that Plaintiff timely exhausted her administrative

- 1 - 12cv2887

Case 3:12-cv-02887-LAB-DHB Document 50 Filed 11/04/14 Page 1 of 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

remedies, the jurisdictional issue before the court is now settled. The Court therefore

GRANTS the joint motion to withdraw the pending motion to dismiss. 

II. Motion to Amend

The parties jointly move to allow Peters leave to amend his answer to assert

additional affirmative defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Rule 15 states that

leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires,” and Peters easily meets

that low threshold. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). But because this joint motion to amend

comes after the Court-ordered deadline to amend pleadings has passed, (see Docket no.

25, Scheduling Ord. at 1), there is also Rule 16's higher threshold to consider. See Coleman

v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Generally, Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a) liberally allows for amendments to pleadings. In this case, however, the

district court correctly found that it should address the issue under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16 because it had filed a pretrial scheduling order that established a timetable for

amending the pleadings . . . .”); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 608–09

(9th Cir. 1992) (“Once the district court had filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 which established a timetable for amended pleadings,

that rule’s standards controlled.”). Under Rule 16, “a schedule may be modified only for

good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

The joint motion to amend does not appear to be driven by bad faith, to prejudice

another party, or to cause delay, and neither Fantelli nor the United States argue otherwise. 

In fact, they have joined Peters’s request. Because Peters would be adding affirmative

defenses that would have be waived if not asserted in the answer to a complaint, Peters has

good cause to seek amendment, even at this late stage. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). 

Accordingly, the parties satisfy Rule 16's higher threshold.

///

///

///

///

- 2 - 12cv2887

Case 3:12-cv-02887-LAB-DHB Document 50 Filed 11/04/14 Page 2 of 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

The Court GRANTS the joint motion for Peters to amend his answer. Rather than

leave it as an attachment to the joint motion, Peters should file it as a separate entry in the

case docket. Peters must file his amended answer within seven days of the date of this

order. All dates in the Scheduling Order remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 3, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv2887

Case 3:12-cv-02887-LAB-DHB Document 50 Filed 11/04/14 Page 3 of 3