Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02206/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02206-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

 On February 18, 2009, at the request of the parties, the Court set these motions for

oral argument, to be held on March 30, 2009. On the business day before the argument,

counsel moved to continue the argument until at least after April 20, 2009 due to counsel’s

health issues. In violation of Local Rule 7.3, counsel failed to represent the position of

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kenneth Long; the surviving father of

Cynthia Jo Johnson; on his own behalf and

as the Personal Representative of the

Estate of Cynthia Jo Johnson; and as the

guardian and/or next best friend of minors

...et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Ford Motor Company; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2206-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time to File an Amended

Complaint (Doc. #84), Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #84), and

Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines (Doc. #86). Plaintiffs wish to amend their

complaint to eliminate those defendants who have settled, to add a new party, and to add new

claims. Further, Plaintiffs request an extension of several scheduling order deadlines.

Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ requests should be denied for failure to establish good cause.

For the following reasons, all of the aforementioned Motions will be denied.1

Case 2:07-cv-02206-JAT Document 101 Filed 04/01/09 Page 1 of 7
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

opposing counsel, and the Court had to call to verify the motion was unopposed. The Court

then vacated the argument. 

The Court having now read the motions, and having been fully advised, the Court will

not reset the oral argument as the Court now finds that oral argument would not have added

in the Court’s decisional process. See Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998).

Further, due to the age of this case, the Court will not delay the ruling any longer. Because

the request to extend time is denied, the Court confirms the discovery deadline of April 17,

2009 and the dispositive motion deadline of May 18, 2009.

- 2 -

I. Factual Background

This case arises from a single-vehicle rollover accident, which occurred on June 19,

2005. (TRW AU Consolidated Response, Complaint, ¶12, Doc. #90, Exh. A.) Phillip

McKnight, while driving a 2003 Ford Expedition XLT (“Vehicle”), suffered a right rear tire

tread separation, which caused the Vehicle to lose control. (Id.) Cynthia Jo Johnson was

ejected from the Vehicle and sustained fatal injuries. (Id.) The remaining passengers Shauna

McKnight, Sean McKnight, Samantha McKnight, Cherish Rogers, and Christopher Dean

Johnson received various other injuries. (Id.) On June 18, 2007, a complaint was timely

filed against Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Continental Tire North America, Inc.

(“Continental”) asserting strict product liability and negligence. (Id., ¶¶5-6, 8-9, 15-16.)

Plaintiffs amended their complaint, on October 12, 2007, substituting TRW Automotive U.S.,

L.L.C. (“TRW AU”) for “Entity A,” and asserting a claim related to a seat belt defect. (TRW

AU Consolidated Response, First Amended Complaint, ¶¶7, 18-22, 25, Doc. #90, Exh. B.)

In November 2007, the action was removed to federal court based on diversity

jurisdiction. ( Doc. #3.) A Rule 16 Scheduling Order (“Scheduling Order”) was entered on

January 26, 2008. (Doc. #26.) The deadline to amend the complaint was set for March 15,

2008. (Scheduling Order, Doc. #26.) TRW AU served its initial disclosure statement, on

February 7, 2008. (Doc. #90, Exh. C.) TRW AU disclaimed any involvement in the

business of manufacturing, designing, or selling seatbelts, but alleged to be unable to identify

the responsible party until further investigation was conducted. (TRW AU Consolidated

Response, Initial Disclosure Statement of TRW AU, p.7, Doc. #90, Exh. C.) In September

Case 2:07-cv-02206-JAT Document 101 Filed 04/01/09 Page 2 of 7
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

- 3 -

2008, TRW AU inspected the Vehicle. (Motion to Extend Time to File an Amended

Complaint, First Supplemental Disclosure Statement, p.3, Doc. #84, Exh. E.) In the First

Supplemental Disclosure Statement, TRW AU stated the seatbelt was designed,

manufactured, and assembled by TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc. (“TRW VSSI”). (Id.)

Following settlements, Defendants Ford and Continental have been dismissed from

this litigation. (Order on Stipulation for Dismissal, Doc. #64; Order on Stipulation of

Dismissal, Doc. #93.) Accordingly, only the wrongful death and personal injury claims

against TRW AU remain. 

II. Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines and Motion to Extend

Time to File Amended Complaint

A. Standard

Both Motions to Extend Time are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16

(“Rule 16”) and thus will be addressed simultaneously. Normally, attempts to amend

complaints are addressed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (“Rule 15”), but where

an amendment would require an extension of the scheduling order deadlines, Rule 16 is

considered first. Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). In other

words, when the district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16, a

motion seeking to amend the pleadings is governed secondarily by Rule 15(a), only after

Rule 16(b) has been satisfied. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal.

1999); see Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000); Janicki

Logging Co., 42 F.3d at 566. Accordingly, the Court will first evaluate Plaintiffs’ Motions

under Rule 16, and then, if necessary, under Rule 15(a). “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal

amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an

amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)[(4)]’s ‘good cause’ standard

primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

Case 2:07-cv-02206-JAT Document 101 Filed 04/01/09 Page 3 of 7
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 -

Generally, to meet the burden of Rule 16’s “good cause” standard, the movant will

be required to show:

(1) that [the movant] was diligent in assisting the Court in creating a workable Rule

16 [O]rder; (2) that [the movant’s] noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred

or will occur, notwithstanding [the movant’s] 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 [the movant]

was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 [O]rder, once it became apparent

that [the movant] could not comply with the [O]rder.

Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608. Furthermore, the district court may extend the pretrial schedule

deadlines “if [they] cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. However, “carelessness is not compatible with a

finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Id. “Although the existence

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

to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking

modification.” Id. If the moving party was not diligent, then the inquiry should end and the

motion should not be granted. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.

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

B. Analysis

Plaintiffs argue that their requests for the extension of the Scheduling Order deadlines,

including to amend their complaint, arise from TRW AU not timely disclosing the proper

party responsible for the Vehicle’s seatbelts. (Motion to Extend Time to File an Amended

Complaint, p.7, Doc. #84; Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines, p.2, Doc. #86.)

Defendant believes both motions should be denied based on the Plaintiffs’ lack of due

diligence. (TRW AU’s Consolidated Response, p.1, Doc. #90.)

While it is true that TRW AU did not disclose the proper entity, TRW VSSI, until

October 27, 2008, this information was available to Plaintiffs as early as February 25, 2008.

In Ford’s Initial Disclosure Statement, Ford identified TRW VSSI as the supplier for the

seatbelts originally installed in the Vehicle. (TRW AU’s Consolidated Response, Ford’s

Automatic Initial Disclosure, p.10, Doc. #90, Exh. D.) Also, in TRW AU’s Initial Disclosure

Statement, TRW AU denied having any responsibility for the seatbelts, and provided as a

Case 2:07-cv-02206-JAT Document 101 Filed 04/01/09 Page 4 of 7
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 -

person with general knowledge the name of a senior engineering manager of TRW VSSI.

(TRW AU’s Consolidated Response, Initial Disclosure Statement of TRW AU, p.3, 7, Doc.

#90, Exh. C.) The Court also notes that Plaintiffs’ counsel works at a sophisticated

automotive products liability firm that has engaged in seat belt defect claims against TRW

VSSI for five years, including a case involving a 2003 Ford Expedition. (TRW AU’s

Consolidated Response, p.3, Doc. #90.) See Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1986) (even under the liberal Rule 15 standard the

court stated late amendments “are not reviewed favorably when the facts and theory have

been known to the party seeking amendment since the inception of the cause of action”).

Plaintiffs’ argue that when Ford made the February 25, 2008 disclosure, former

counsel was phasing out of the case, and current counsel was not in a position to act until

after the deadline. (Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Reply, p.3, Doc. #94.) First, substitution of

counsel is not a valid excuse for delay. See Moore v. Sylvania Elec. Prods., Inc., 454 F.2d

81, 83-84 (3rd Cir. 1972) (court found there is no merit to a request for additional time for

substituted counsel, counsel is bound by pretrial representations of original counsel).

Second, new counsel waited nine months after he received Ford’s disclosure before he

moved for extension of the Scheduling Order deadlines. See Johns v. Autonation USA Corp.,

246 F.R.D. 608, 610 (D. Ariz. 2006) (court denied motion requesting extension of time

where only explanation for delay was substitution of counsel, and new counsel waited four

months to request extension); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th

Cir. 1992) (held trial court was correct to deny motion to amend where it was requested four

months after the deadline); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir.

2002) (court found no error in denying motion where counsel did not seek to amend until

four months after the court issued the scheduling order). When it became apparent to new

counsel that he would be unable to meet the Scheduling Order deadlines, it was not diligent

to wait nine months before moving for an extension of time.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs explained the nine month delay on the reasoning that “it was

more prudent for plaintiffs, the deadline having already passed, to await the results of the

Case 2:07-cv-02206-JAT Document 101 Filed 04/01/09 Page 5 of 7
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

 Plaintiffs also moved to eliminate Ford and Continental from their original

complaint, but this issue is moot as both defendants have been dismissed from this litigation.

(Doc. #64; Doc. #93.)

- 6 -

investigation by TRW AU[] than to rush to amend.” (Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Reply, p.3,

Doc. #94.) Based on this statement, the Court finds the delay was the result of a tactical

decision. A tactical decision to delay does not merit good cause. See Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of

Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1986) (even under the

liberal Rule 15 standard the court found no error in denying the motion to amend complaint

where the delay was the result of a tactical decision).

Plaintiffs’ allege TRW AU is responsible for the delay by “discovery stonewalling.”

(Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines, p.2, Doc. #86; Motion to Extend Time to

File an Amended Complaint, p.7, Doc. #84.) Whether or not TRW AU intentionally

prolonged the delay in identifying TRW VSSI as the responsible entity is not relevant here

because Plaintiffs were not diligent. As discussed above, Rule 16 focuses on the diligence

of the moving party. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

1992). TRW AU’s actions did not prevent Plaintiffs from moving to amend the complaint

and requesting an extension of the Scheduling Order using the disclosure by Ford and its

prior knowledge of seat belt defect claims. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271,

1295 (9th Cir. 2000) (court found no error in denying motion to amend when plaintiff had

information to support amendment for a year prior). Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to show

good cause to justify an extension of the Scheduling Order deadlines.

Plaintiffs also moved to amend the complaint to add a claim for personal injury for

Sean McKnight, and make the personal injury claim for Shauna McKnight more explicit.2

(Motion to Extend Time for Amended Complaint, p.2, Doc. # 84.) Plaintiffs provide no

explanation as to why good cause exists to add these claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not

shown, under the Rule 16 standard, why these claims could not have been added or amended

before the deadline. Accordingly, both Motions for Extension of the Scheduling Order

deadlines will be denied.

Case 2:07-cv-02206-JAT Document 101 Filed 04/01/09 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 -

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines

(Doc. #86).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time to File an

Amended Complaint (Doc. #84).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint as it is rendered moot based on the denial of the Motion to Extend Time

to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. #84).

DATED this 1st day of April, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-02206-JAT Document 101 Filed 04/01/09 Page 7 of 7