Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02001/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02001-13/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert E. LISS and Zoe LISS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

EXEL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,

INC. et al., 

Defendants. 

EXEL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,

INC.,

Counterclaimant,

v.

Robert E. LISS and Zoe LISS,

Counterdefendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-04-2001-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff-Counterdefendant Robert E. Liss’s (“Liss”) Motion for Leave

to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 243). Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to include claims

against Defendant-Counterclaimant Exel Transportation Services (“Exel”) for unpaid bonus

compensation in 2001 and 2002. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the Court issues this

Order.

//

//

//

Case 2:04-cv-02001-SMM Document 287 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 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

1

 The factual background of this case is set forth in the Court’s Order dated April 3, 2007

(Dkt. 213).

- 2 -

BACKGROUND

The dispute in this matter arose out of an employment agreement between Liss as

employee and Exel’s predecessors as employers.1

 On June 9, 2006 the parties stipulated

their consent to file amended pleadings, an amended complaint and amended answer. (Dkt.

114.) On November 16, 2006 Exel moved for partial summary judgment on Liss’s claims

for 2001 and 2002 bonus compensation, arguing that the First Amended Complaint did not

allege or plead that he is entitled to any bonus monies for 2001 and 2002. (Dkt. 188.) On

April 3, 2007, the Court granted Exel’s motion, finding that the Amended Complaint “does

not make reference to unpaid bonus compensation for the years 2001 and 2002.” (Dkt. 213

at 10.) On August 24, 2007, Liss filed this motion for leave to amend the complaint to

include claims against Exel for bonus monies for 2001 and 2002. (Dkt. 243.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

After a responsive pleading has been served, a party “may amend its pleading only

with . . . the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend,

factors to be considered include undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, futility of

amendment, prejudice to the opposing party; and repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

previous amendments. Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir.

1989). If a deadline for filing amended pleadings set in a case management scheduling order

has passed, an amendment requires modification of the scheduling order and a showing of

“good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294

(9th Cir. 2000). “Good cause” primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment, although prejudice to the party opposing the modification provides an

additional reason to deny the motion. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

609 (9th Cir. 1992).

Case 2:04-cv-02001-SMM Document 287 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

DISCUSSION

The Rule 16 Scheduling Order established June 2, 2006 as the deadline for filing

amendments to the Complaint. (See Dkt. 94, Scheduling Order at 2.) As a result, Liss must

show “good cause” for modifying the scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). In this

case, Liss has not specifically request that the court modify its scheduling order, but has

merely moved to amend his complaint. The failure to seek modification of the scheduling

order standing alone provides sufficient basis to deny Liss’ motion. See Mammoth

Recreations, 975 F.2d at 608-609; see also U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E.

Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir. 1985), superceded by statute on other grounds as

recognized in Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Therefore Liss’s motion is denied as untimely.

The Court would reach the same conclusion even if it treated Liss’s motion as a de

facto motion to modify the scheduling order. Liss argues that it only became aware of the

defects in the FAC until April 3, 2007. However, Liss was on notice of the potential

deficiency beginning on at least November 16, 2006 when Exel filed its motion for summary

judgment on his claims for 2001 and 2002 bonus compensation. (See Dkt. 188.) Liss’s

response to that motion maintained that he had correctly pled those claims, and did not

request in the alternative that he be granted leave to amend the FAC. (See id.) These

actions are not compatible with a finding of diligence, and Liss has failed to demonstrate

good cause for his belated motion.

Finally, the Court notes the futility of amending the complaint to assert claims for

unpaid bonus compensation for 2001 and 2002. Futility of amendment can justify denying

leave to amend. See Moore, 885 F.2d at 538. In this case, it would be futile to grant leave

to amend because the Court has already granted summary judgment on the claims Liss seeks

to add. (Dkt. 213, Order dated April 3, 2007.) Liss argues that the “crux” of that order is

that the FAC did not properly allege 2001 and 2002 bonus claims, and that the Court has not

ruled on Liss’s claims for 2001 and 2002. (Liss’s Reply at 2-3.) Although the reason

behind that order was the FAC’s failure to expressly plead claims for 2001 and 2002, the

Case 2:04-cv-02001-SMM Document 287 Filed 01/04/08 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

effect of that order was to grant Exel summary judgment on those claims. (Order dated

April 3, 2007 at 10.) Permitting Liss leave to amend his complaint to more fully allege

claims on which summary judgment has been granted is nothing if not an exercise in futility. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Liss’s Motion For Leave to Amend Complaint

(Dkt. 243).

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-02001-SMM Document 287 Filed 01/04/08 Page 4 of 4