Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01385/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01385-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1333 Admiralty

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HEMPEL, A/S, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-01385 CW

ORDER DENYING

HEMPEL’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE

AMENDED ANSWER

Defendant and Counter Claimant Hempel A/S (Hempel) moves for

leave to file a first amended answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. 

Plaintiff Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL) opposes the motion. Hempel

has not filed a reply. Having considered all the papers filed by

the parties, the Court DENIES Hempel’s motion.

BACKGROUND

On March 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Hempel

and other Defendants alleging claims that they negligently repaired

Plaintiff’s vessel, the M/S Norwegian Star (the Star). On June 27,

2007, Hempel filed its answer and counterclaims for breach of

contract against NCL. On August 8, 2007, the Court entered a

minute order and case management order in which it set September

28, 2007 as the deadline for adding additional parties or claims,

January 24, 2008 as the deadline for hearing case-dispositive

motions, March 4, 2008 as the pre-trial conference and March 17,

2008 as the beginning of a five-day court trial. On December 5,

2007, Hempel filed this motion for leave to file its first amended

Case 4:07-cv-01385-CW Document 34 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

answer to add an additional defense. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides for

liberal allowance of amendments to pleadings. However, on August 

8, 2007, this Court issued a scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16

requiring that all new claims must be added by September 28, 2007. 

Plaintiff moved to file an amended answer on December 5, 2007, more

than two months after the deadline. Therefore, Rule 16(b) applies.

Under Rule 16(b), "[a] schedule shall not be modified except

upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge." 

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 16(b). Where a schedule has been filed, the

plaintiff's ability "to amend his complaint [is] governed by Rule

16(b), not Rule 15(a)." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, a party seeking to amend

a pleading after the date specified in a scheduling order must

first show "good cause" for the amendment under Rule 16(b), and

second, if good cause is shown, the party must demonstrate that the

amendment is proper under Rule 15. Id.

In order to determine whether good cause exists, courts

primarily consider the diligence of the party seeking the

modification. Id. at 609; see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232

F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). "[N]ot only must parties

participate from the outset in creating a workable Rule 16

scheduling order but they must also diligently attempt to adhere to

that schedule throughout the subsequent course of the litigation." 

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). A

party moving for an amendment to a scheduling order must therefore

Case 4:07-cv-01385-CW Document 34 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

show it was diligent in assisting the Court to create a workable

schedule at the outset of litigation, that the scheduling order

imposes deadlines that have become unworkable notwithstanding its

diligent efforts to comply with the schedule, and that it was

diligent in seeking the amendment once it became apparent that

extensions were necessary. Id. at 608.

DISCUSSION

In its motion, Hempel indicates that on November 7, 2007,

Plaintiff’s counsel produced documents in response to Hempel’s

discovery requests that indicated that Hempel and Plaintiff had

executed a Performance Guarantee Contract (the Contract) regarding

the repair work performed on the Star. Hempel indicates that,

before these documents were produced by Plaintiff, it was unaware

that the Contract had been executed by Plaintiff. Hempel says that

it then obtained a copy of the Contract and ascertained that it

contained a provision that provided a limitation of liability that

allegedly precludes Hempel’s liability for consequential damages,

losses or expenses resulting from its work on the Star. In its

amended answer, Hempel wishes to plead the limitation of liability

provisions of the Contract as a defense to Plaintiff’s negligence

claims. Without providing any rationale, Hempel says that there is

no prejudice to Plaintiff from the amendment, and that Hempel has

not unduly delayed filing its motion.

Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that because Hempel

drafted the Contract, it was in Hempel’s possession and, thus,

Hempel knew about the Contract from the inception of this action.

Plaintiff points out that Hempel provides no justification for

Case 4:07-cv-01385-CW Document 34 Filed 01/23/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

failing to include this defense in its original answer or for

failing to move to amend in a timely manner. Plaintiff argues that

it will suffer significant prejudice if Hempel is allowed to amend

its answer at this late date because the new defense raises a major

new legal issue. Therefore, Plaintiff argues, it will have to

engage in extensive additional discovery and take additional

depositions that would significantly expand the scope of the trial. 

Because the discovery cutoff is January 16, 2007, Plaintiff argues

it will not have the opportunity to conduct the necessary discovery

unless both the discovery cutoff date and the trial date are

continued.

Because Hempel has not filed a reply, Plaintiff’s arguments

are undisputed. This is particularly true because Hempel’s

original motion is just one page, with bare allegations that are

devoid of reasoning. Hempel also fails to provide a declaration or

any evidence to justify its failure to file this motion earlier. 

CONCLUSION

Hempel has failed to show good cause under Rule 16(b) to allow

leave to file an amended answer at this late date. Because Hempel

does not meet Rule 16(b)’s good cause requirement, the Court need

not examine whether amendment is warranted under Rule 15(a). 

Hempel’s motion to amend (Docket # 20) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/23/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01385-CW Document 34 Filed 01/23/08 Page 4 of 4