Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02774/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02774-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--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

1 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders the matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

PRASAD MEDEPALLI,

NO. CIV. 06-2774 FCD/EFB

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MAXIMUS, INC.,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Prasad

Medepalli’s (“plaintiff”) motion for leave to file a first

amended complaint, pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Plaintiff seeks to add an additional cause of

action and to clarify dates cited in the original complaint. 

Defendant Maximus, Inc. (“defendant”) opposes the motion. For

the reasons set forth below,1 plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

On October 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint in the

Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. The

Case 2:06-cv-02774-FCD-EFB Document 16 Filed 10/23/07 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

2

complaint sought damages for violations of the California Labor

Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Defendant

removed the case to this court on the basis of diversity

jurisdiction. The court issued a pretrial scheduling order on

March 12, 2007. Discovery closes October 31, 2007, and the case

is set for final pretrial conference on May 30, 2008 and trial on

July 29, 2008.

Plaintiff contends that good cause exists to grant his

motion for leave to amend the original complaint for several

reasons. Plaintiff asserts that allowing an additional cause of

action based on California Business and Professions Code section

17200, et. seq., will clarify that for the entire period of his

employment with defendant he was not paid overtime wages. 

Plaintiff asserts that the original complaint contains sufficient

facts to support this additional claim and that no new facts are

alleged in the proposed amended complaint. Plaintiff emphasizes

that the original complaint alleges the same violations of

California law relied upon for the new Business and Professions

Code claim.

Plaintiff also maintains that allowing the complaint to be

amended will result in no prejudice to defendant. Plaintiff’s

counsel conferred with defense counsel regarding the proposed

amendment, and defendant received a copy of the proposed first

amended complaint with this motion. Also, plaintiff asserts that

no new discovery will be required because the Section 17200 claim

has the same basis as the causes of action in the original

complaint. Finally, plaintiff contends that permitting the

amendment will not require postponement of the dates already set

Case 2:06-cv-02774-FCD-EFB Document 16 Filed 10/23/07 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

in the pretrial scheduling order.

Defendant asserts to the contrary that plaintiff cannot show

good cause for the amendment because plaintiff unreasonably

delayed seeking the amendment, and plaintiff filed this motion to

amend for “improper” reasons. 

Because the court finds that plaintiff has not acted

diligently in seeking leave to amend, his motion is DENIED.

Rule 15's liberal policy of favoring amendments does not

apply once a court has entered a scheduling order. Rather, Rule

16(b) requires a showing of good cause in order to permit a

subsequent amendment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Coleman v. Quaker

Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). The primary

consideration in determining whether good cause exists is the

diligence of the party seeking the extension. Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus,

plaintiff must show that he was diligent in meeting the

scheduling order’s requirements.

Plaintiff fails to show good cause to allow amendment to the

original complaint. The court entered the pretrial scheduling

order on March 12, 2007, but plaintiff filed this motion more

than six months after the order was entered. More importantly,

plaintiff fails to explain any reason for this delay. In fact,

plaintiff states that the cause of action he seeks to add is

“entirely based on the same period of employment and the same

California Labor Code violations previously pled in plaintiff’s

original complaint.” (Pl.’s Mot. to Amend at 8.) Even though the

cause of action plaintiff seeks to add stems from the same facts

as the causes of action in the original complaint, plaintiff does

Case 2:06-cv-02774-FCD-EFB Document 16 Filed 10/23/07 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

not explain why it took over a year from the time the original

complaint was filed to file this motion. Plaintiff’s counsel’s

later research, referenced in the reply, does not supply good

cause to amend. Thus, plaintiff has not shown that he was

diligent in moving to amend.

In addition to failing to show good cause, allowing

plaintiff to amend the complaint would prejudice defendant. Rule

16(b) does not require a showing of prejudice, but it can serve

as a reason to deny a motion for leave to amend. Coleman, 232

F.3d at 1295. Despite plaintiff’s assertions to the contrary,

adding a Section 17200 claim likely would require additional

discovery and an extension of the October 31 deadline to complete

discovery. Further delay in this case is unwarranted. 

In sum, because plaintiff fails to show good cause to permit

amendment of his complaint, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend

the original complaint is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 22, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-02774-FCD-EFB Document 16 Filed 10/23/07 Page 4 of 4