Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03743/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03743-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIE SU,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-03743-JST 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: ECF No. 175

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff California State Labor Commissioner Julie Su’s

(“Plaintiff”) motion to amend the Court’s scheduling order and motion for leave to file an 

amended complaint. ECF No. 175.1 The Court will deny the motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

This case was filed on July 17, 2012. ECF No. 1. It was originally set for trial on June 2, 

2014, ECF No. 59. The trial date was vacated, however, when Plaintiff sought leave to file an 

interlocutory appeal of certain rulings made by the Court during the resolution of cross-motions 

for summary judgment the Court decided on May 12, 2014. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion 

to seek interlocutory appeal, and stayed the trial court proceedings for the duration of the appeal. 

ECF No. 143, 162. 

On November 14, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiff permission to appeal pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). ECF No. 166. This case then returned to this Court, which set a case 

management conference for November 26, 2014. ECF No. 165. The parties submitted a joint case 

management statement, which indicated that no amendments to the pleadings were sought at that 

time and that discovery had been completed. ECF No. 167 at 3. The parties indicated “[t]his 

 

1

The Court has determined that the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument. Civ. 

L.R. 7-1(b). 

Case 3:12-cv-03743-JST Document 179 Filed 02/23/15 Page 1 of 4
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

matter is ready for trial, and the only dates that need to be scheduled are the pretrial conference 

and the trial.” Plaintiff, Defendant, and Intervenor requested “the earliest possible date for pretrial 

conference and trial,” but each provided numerous periods during which he, she or it would be 

unavailable for trial. See id. at 4-5. Defendant subsequently filed a letter to the Court indicating 

that Defendant’s client representative would also be unavailable for trial for a two week period in 

late June. On December 4, 2014, taking into consideration the parties’ stated unavailable dates

and the Court’s own pre-existing schedule, the Court set the case for pre-trial conference on July 

31, 2015 and trial beginning on August 17, 2015. 

On January 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed this motion, seeking “to amend the Scheduling Order 

in order to file an Amended Complaint,” which “would allege that Complainants Anderson and 

Pitschner were terminated in part for their February 2010 protected safety complaints to their 

union in the presence of their supervisor.” ECF No. 175-1. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Requests to modify a scheduling order made after the Court has set a timetable for 

amending the pleadings are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Coleman v. Quaker 

Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 16(b)(4) requires “good cause” and the 

consent of the Court to amend a scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). As Plaintiff 

acknowledges, the Court considers the diligence of the parties in deciding such a motion. 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. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Johnson 

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

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint in this action over a year after the close of discovery 

in order to add a new allegation about conduct that allegedly occurred five years ago -- that 

Complainants were terminated in part for a protected February 2010 conversation about safety 

complaints that was overheard by their supervisor. 

In Coleman, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s refusal to permit the plaintiffs 

Case 3:12-cv-03743-JST Document 179 Filed 02/23/15 Page 2 of 4
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

in that case to amend their pleading after plaintiffs requested such relief for the first time in their 

reply to Defendant’s response to their motion for summary judgment. Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1294. 

The court noted that granting the request would have prejudiced the defendant by requiring the 

discovery to be reopened, but noted that, even if defendant would not have been prejudiced, the 

denial would have been justified as plaintiffs had “failed to show diligence” in seeking to amend 

their complaint. Id. 

In the instant case, Plaintiff’s only argument regarding diligence is a complete nonsequitur. Plaintiff argues that she did not state any previous intention to amend the complaint 

“because Plaintiff hoped and believed that the trial would be set within a few to six months, and 

she did not want to do anything that could delay trial” at the time she submitted the November 26, 

2014 Joint Case Management Statement. ECF No. 175-1. Plaintiff argues that because the Court 

then scheduled trial on a date later than the one she expected, Plaintiff exercised reasonable 

diligence by filing this motion January 22, 2015, more than six weeks after the Court’s setting of 

the trial schedule.

This argument misses the point. The conversation Plaintiff seeks to add to the complaint 

occurred on February 9, 2010. ECF No. 177. Complainants Anderson and Pitschner were parties 

to the conversation and Anderson received a call from his supervisor David Slotta later that day in 

which Slotta said he had seen Anderson talking to his “buddy Jim Smith.” ECF No. 175-1. All of 

these facts were known to Complainants throughout the entire history of this litigation.

Plaintiff does not explain why it took her five years after the conduct in question allegedly 

occurred, almost three years after the filing of the complaint, and one year after the close of 

discovery, to propose her new allegations. The Ninth Circuit held in Coleman that plaintiffs had 

failed to demonstrate diligence by moving to amend a complaint in their reply brief at summary 

judgment. Plaintiff Su, who filed her summary judgment reply brief almost a year ago, on March 

21, 2014, is in a substantially worse position than the plaintiffs in Coleman. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has not shown diligence. Therefore, “the inquiry [will] end,” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 

609, and the Court need not address the question of prejudice to the Defendant. Plaintiff’s motion 

Case 3:12-cv-03743-JST Document 179 Filed 02/23/15 Page 3 of 4
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

is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-03743-JST Document 179 Filed 02/23/15 Page 4 of 4