Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01192/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01192-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:1101 Violation of Maritime Regulations

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1192-WQH-JLB

ORDER

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

NATIONAL STEEL AND

SHIPBUILDING COMPANY; and

OILKLEEN, INC.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Amend Case Management

Conference Order and Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (ECF No.

55) filed by Plaintiff Jesus Garcia.

BACKGROUND

On May 12, 2014, Plaintiff Jesus Garcia initiated this action by filing a

Complaint against Defendants United States of America, National Steel and

Shipbuilding Company (“National Steel”), and Oilkleen, Inc. (“Oilkleen”). (ECF No.

1). On May 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint as a matter of course

against the same Defendants. (ECF No. 4). On May 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Second

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) against the same Defendants after obtaining leave of

Court (ECF No. 6).

On June 12, 2014, National Steel filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 8). On July 28, 2014, the Court issued an

- 1 - 14cv1192WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 65 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 6
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

Order denying National Steel’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 20).

On October 31, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an Case Management

Conference Order Regulating Discovery and other Pretrial Proceedings. (ECF No. 39). 

The case management order stated that “[a]ny motion to join other parties, to amend the

pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed on or before December 15,

2014.” Id. at 1.

On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to File Third

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 50). On March 26, 2015, the Court issued an Order

denying Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 54). The Court’s Order stated that “[i]n this case,

Plaintiff fails to show ‘good cause’ to modify the scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b)(4). Defendant’s motion failed to provide any reasoning for amending the

scheduling order or amending the Second Amended Complaint.” Id. at 3.

On March 31, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend Case Management

Conference Order and Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No.

55). On April 16, 2015, Defendant United States filed a response in opposition of

Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 59). Defendants Oilkleen and National Steel have not

filed responses to Plaintiff’s motion. On April 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF

No. 62).

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

Plaintiff contends that good cause exists for the Court to amend the scheduling

order. Plaintiff contends that Defendant United States’s initial disclosures, and

Defendant National Steel’s Initial Critique Report both identified Janet Mahn as an

employee of PMS 117, a United States Navy organization. Plaintiff contends that he

therefore “erroneously believed that Janet Mahn was employed by Defendant United

States of America....” (ECF No. 55-2 at 2). Plaintiff contends that it was not until after

December 15, 2014, the deadline for amending the pleadings set by the case

management conference order (ECF No. 39), that Plaintiff learned that Janet Mahn was

employed by American Systems Corporation. Plaintiff contends that as soon as he

- 2 - 14cv1192WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 65 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 6
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

realized that Janet Mahn was employed by American Systems Corporation he filed a

motion for leave to file a third amended complaint adding American Systems

Corporation as a Defendant. Plaintiff contends that there was no undue delay on

Plaintiff’s part in moving to add American Systems Corporation to the case as soon as

he became aware of its role in his accident.

Defendant United States contends that Plaintiff’s motion fails to adhere to the

requirements of the Court’s Civil Chambers Rule VII. Defendant United States

contends that Rule VII requires that any request to reschedule a case management order

deadline must address the original date or deadline; the number of previous requests to

reschedule; and whether rescheduling the date or deadline will affect other dates in the

Case Management Conference Order. Defendant United States contends that Plaintiff

only addressed the deadline to amend the complaint, requesting an extension until May

15, 2015, but did not address the impact on the remaining case management order dates

if his motion is granted, specifically the expert report disclosure deadline, the discovery

cut-off date, and the pre-trial and trial dates, all of which would be impacted by the

proposed amendment.

If Plaintiff’s motions are granted, Defendant United States requests that the

corresponding continuances be made to both the expert report disclosure deadline and

the discovery cut-off date.

RULING OF THE COURT

I. Motion to Amend Case Management Conference Order

When, as here, a party moves to amend the pleadings after the deadline to amend

pleadings has past, the party must first demonstrate “good cause” to amend the

scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and then

demonstrate that amendment is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 

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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that “[a] schedule may be

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

- 3 - 14cv1192WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 65 Filed 05/12/15 Page 3 of 6
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

“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

seeking amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Johnson,

975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983

Amendment)). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing

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.” Id. (citation omitted). “Where ... the court determines

that refusal to allow a modification might result in injustice while allowance would

cause no substantial injury to the opponent and no more than slight inconvenience to

the court, a modification should ordinarily be allowed.” United States v. First Nat.

Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 1981).

In this case, Plaintiff states that he “erroneously believed that Janet Mahn was

employed by Defendant United States of America” due to the initial disclosures of

Defendant United States and the Initial Critique Report of Defendant National Steel

which identified Janet Mahn as an employee of PMS 117. Furthermore, Plaintiff states

that “as soon as plaintiff realized that Janet Mahn was employed by [American Systems

Corporation] he filed a motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint adding

[American Systems Corporation] as a defendant on February 23, 2015.” (ECF No. 55-2

at 3). The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown “good cause” to modify the scheduling

order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

II. Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In determining whether to allow an amendment, a court

considers whether there is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing

party,” or “futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Not

- 4 - 14cv1192WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 65 Filed 05/12/15 Page 4 of 6
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

all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight.... [I]t is the consideration of prejudice

to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at

1052 (citation omitted). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing

prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 

“Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there

exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence

Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

After review of the motion, and the filings of the parties, the Court concludes that

Defendant United States has not made a sufficiently strong showing of the Foman

factors to overcome the presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to

amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s motion

contains proofs of service indicating that all Defendants were served with the motion

for leave to amend. (ECF No. 55-4). The motion and the Court’s docket reflect that the

hearing for the motion was noticed for May 4, 2015. Defendants Oilkeen and National

Steel have not filed oppositions to the motion. Civil Local Rule 7.1 provides: “each

party opposing a motion ... must file that opposition ... with the clerk ... not later than

fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing.” S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7.1(e)(2). 

“If an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule

7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request

for ruling by the court.”). S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). Defendants Oilkleen

and National Steel do not oppose the motion. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Case

Management Conference Order and Motion for Leave to File Third Amended

Complaint is granted.

///

- 5 - 14cv1192WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 65 Filed 05/12/15 Page 5 of 6
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

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Case Management

Conference Order and Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (ECF No.

55) is GRANTED. The Case Management Conference Order (ECF No. 39) is

AMENDED to extend the deadline to file “[a]ny motion to join other parties, to amend

the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings” from December 15, 2014 to May 15,

2015. Plaintiff shall file the proposed Third Amended Complaint no later than May 15,

2015.

DATED: May 12, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 6 - 14cv1192WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 65 Filed 05/12/15 Page 6 of 6