Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-05083/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-05083-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARK ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

METROPOLITAN EDUCATION 

DISTRICT FOUNDATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05083-BLF 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO AMEND; TERMINATING 

ACTION

[Re: ECF 63]

On January 16, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Mark Adams’s only federal law claim 

in his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), holding that his claim under the Taft-Hartley Act is 

barred because Defendant Metropolitan Education District is a political subdivision of the state. 

ECF 62. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. Id. 

In his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff requested leave to amend his FAC, 

recognizing that it had many deficiencies and attaching a proposed Second Amended Complaint 

(“SAC”). ECF 60 at 1, 3. The Court responded to this request as follows: 

Plaintiff argues that he should have the opportunity to amend his complaint to add 

new federal law claims, which would allow this Court to retain federal question 

jurisdiction. See Opp. at 5. But Plaintiff has not moved to amend his complaint. 

The Court cannot grant a request not properly before it. Moreover, the deadline to 

amend the pleadings in this case was May 14, 2018. See ECF 55. Plaintiff has not 

demonstrated that good cause exists to allow amendment after that deadline, as is 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Even if Plaintiff believes that 

the Court suggested in March 2018 that “he had the Court’s permission to file a 

second amended complaint,” Opp. at 3, this does not explain why he did not do so 

by the May 2018 deadline, and even more so why he did not do so before Defendants 

filed their motion to dismiss in July 2018, or before this Court spent time resolving 

the motion. Finally, Plaintiff does not justify why the Court should allow him to add 

entirely new federal law claims to this case nearly a year and a half after the case was 

first filed, especially given that Plaintiff has already taken the opportunity to amend

once.

Case 5:17-cv-05083-BLF Document 67 Filed 03/08/19 Page 1 of 3
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

ECF 62 at 5. Nevertheless, the Court gave Plaintiff 14 days in which to file a motion for 

leave to amend.

On January 30, 2019, nearly six months after the deadline to amend the pleadings in this 

case, and nearly one-and-a-half years since filing his Complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave 

to amend. ECF 63. Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his Complaint by removing all of his original 

claims (the barred Taft-Hartley Act claim and all eleven state law claims) and alleging five new 

federal law claims. See ECF 63-1. Plaintiff argues that these claims are based on the same 

conduct alleged in the original Complaint and FAC, as well as perhaps additional conduct by 

Plaintiff in “reporting of questionable or improper conduct and the discrimination, ADA violations 

and the retaliation plaintiff was subjected to.” ECF 63 at 2–3. Importantly, he argues that leave to 

amend shall be freely given under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), as opposed to arguing 

that good cause exists, as required under Rule 16(b)(4), as made clear in the Court’s previous 

order. See ECF 63, 66. 

On March 2, 2018, Plaintiff stipulated to his intent to file a SAC “during the week 

of March 12, 2018.” ECF 53. On April 5, 2018, June 7, 2018, and June 25, 2018, the 

parties conferred via email about Plaintiff’s intent to amend, and on each occasion, 

Plaintiff indicated his intent to amend. Bengtson Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 65-1. On July 24, 2018, 

Defendants moved to dismiss, which Plaintiff opposed by conceding, in part, that his FAC 

was deficient. ECF Nos. 59, 60. And yet he did not move for leave to amend by the May 

14, 2018 deadline; he did not move for leave to amend in response to his conferences with 

Defendants; he did not move for leave to amend in the face of a motion to dismiss; and he 

did not move for leave to amend before this Court took the time to rule on a motion to 

dismiss that he admitted was meritorious. Now, he fails to provide any justification for 

this delay. The Court’s order granting him 14 days to file a motion for leave to amend was 

a courtesy to allow him to demonstrate good cause under Rule 16 why the Court should 

amend the scheduling order. He does not even attempt to satisfy this requirement. 

The Court holds that Plaintiff was not diligent in seeking leave to amend. See In re 

W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737–38 (9th Cir. 2013), aff’d 

Case 5:17-cv-05083-BLF Document 67 Filed 03/08/19 Page 2 of 3
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

sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (“[T]he focus of the Rule 16(b)

inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification . . . . If that party was 

not diligent, the inquiry should end.” (citations, alterations, and internal quotation marks 

omitted)). He also has not demonstrated why he could not have brought these claims when 

he first filed this action. See id. At bottom, it appears Plaintiff was simply careless; 

“carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant 

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

Because Plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking to amend his Complaint (with entirely 

new claims) and failed to demonstrate good cause under Rule 16, the motion for leave to 

amend is DENIED. Having dismissed Plaintiff’s only federal law claim with prejudice 

and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, the Court has 

dismissed all claims in this case. The case is hereby TERMINATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-05083-BLF Document 67 Filed 03/08/19 Page 3 of 3