Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02086/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02086-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

an Arkansas corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SKY HIGH SPORTS LLC, a 

California and Nevada Limited 

Liability Company; SKY HIGH 

SPORTS CONCORD LLC, a 

California and Nevada Limited 

Liability Company; SKY HIGH 

SPORTS NASHVILLE LLC, a 

Nevada and Tennessee Limited 

Liability Company; SKY HIGH 

SPORTS ONTARIO LLC, a 

California and Nevada Limited 

Liability Company; SKY HIGH 

SPORTS OPPORTUNITIES LLC, a 

California and Nevada Limited 

Liability Company; SKY HIGH 

SPORTS ORANGE COUNTY LLC, a 

California and Nevada Limited 

Liability Company; SKY HIGH

SPORTS SACRAMENTO, a 

California and Nevada Limited 

Liability Company; SKY HIGH 

SPORTS SANTA CLARA LLC, a 

California and Nevada Limited 

Liability Company; and SKY 

HIGH SPORTS SEATTLE LLC, a 

Nevada and Washington Limited 

Liability Company, and DOES 

1–20 inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-02086-GEB-KJN

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED AND 

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-02086-MCE-DB Document 27 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 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

2

On November 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15 for leave to amend 

and supplement its Complaint. (ECF No. 25.) Defendants filed a 

statement of non-opposition to the motion on December 17, 2015, 

in which they also “apply to the Court ex parte for an order 

setting a revised scheduling order . . . due to the [anticipated] 

filing of Plaintiff’s Amended and Supplemental Complaint.” 

(Defs.’ Notice of Non-Opp’n 2:17-19, ECF No. 26.) 

Notwithstanding Defendants’ statement of nonopposition, Plaintiff’s motion is denied since Plaintiff does not 

address therein the “good cause” standard that governs a request 

to amend provisions of the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order 

filed on December 8, 2014, (ECF No. 10). One of the referenced 

provisions states: “All discovery shall be completed by December 

22, 2015.” (Id. at 2:20.) Since Plaintiff’s motion necessarily 

requires modification of the Status Order, Plaintiff must first

satisfy Rule 16’s “good cause” standard before seeking to amend 

and/or supplement the Complaint under Rule 15. See Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(“Once the district court file[s] a pretrial scheduling order 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 which 

establishe[s] a timetable for amending pleadings[, and other 

matters,] that rule’s [“good cause”] standard[] control[s]. . . . 

Thus, [a plaintiff’s] ability to amend [its] complaint [i]s 

[first] governed by Rule 16(b), not Rule 15(a).”). 

///

///

///

Case 2:14-cv-02086-MCE-DB Document 27 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Further, in light of the ruling on Plaintiff’s motion, 

decision on Defendant’s ex parte request for a revised scheduling

order, which is conditioned upon Plaintiff being permitted to 

amend and supplement its Complaint, is unnecessary. 

Dated: December 17, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02086-MCE-DB Document 27 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 3