Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01192/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01192-2/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 Fourth Amended Complaint for

Damages and Demand for Jury Trial (ECF No. 73) 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 76 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 5
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 a Case Management

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

The Case Management Conference 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 a 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).

[Plaintiff’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 a second Motion to Amend Case Management

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

55). On May 12, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF

No. 65). The Court’s Order stated that:

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.

Id. at 6.

On June 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend Case Management

Conference Order and Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint for

Damages and Demand for Jury Trial (ECF No. 73). Plaintiff's motion contains proofs

of service indicating that all Defendants were served with the motion for leave to

amend. (ECF No. 73-4). On June, 29, 2015, Defendant United States filed a nonopposition. (ECF No. 75). Defendants Oilkeen, National Steel, and American Systems

Corporation have not filed oppositions to the motion.

- 2 - 14cv1192WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 76 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 5
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

RULING OF THE COURT

I. Motion to Amend Case Management Conference Order

Plaintiff seeks to amend the Case Management Conference Order to extend the

deadline to amend the pleadings to July 31, 2015. Plaintiff contends that good cause

exists for the Court to amend the scheduling order. Plaintiff seeks to amend the

pleadings in order to add an agency claim with regard to Defendant American System

Corporation and Janet Mahn. Plaintiff contends that agency with regard to Janet Mahn

did not appear to be an issue until Defendant United States April 24, 2015 discovery

responses. Plaintiff contends that he has promptly and diligently moved to amend. 

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). 

“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).

- 3 - 14cv1192WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 76 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Defendant United States does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion. Furthermore,

Defendants Oilkeen, National Steel, and American Systems Corporation 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). The Court finds that

Plaintiff has shown “good cause” to modify the scheduling order because agency with

regard to Janet Mahn did not appear to be an issue until Defendant United States April

24, 2015 discovery responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend

Case Management Conference Order is granted.

II. Motion for Leave to File Fourth 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

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 considering the motion and Defendants’ non-opposition, Plaintiff’s Motion

for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint is granted.

- 4 - 14cv1192WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 76 Filed 07/22/15 Page 4 of 5
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 Fourth Amended Complaint for

Damages and Demand for Jury Trial (ECF No. 73) 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 May 15, 2015 to July 31, 2015. Plaintiff shall file the proposed Fourth

Amended Complaint no later than July 31, 2015.

DATED: July 22, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 5 - 14cv1192WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 76 Filed 07/22/15 Page 5 of 5