Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00697/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00697-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RE:LAUNCH, LLC

Plaintiff, No. C-05-0697 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

PC TREASURES, INC. and FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

KAREN SWEET,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

The motion of plaintiff RE:LAUNCH, LLC (“RE:LAUNCH”) for leave to amend the

complaint came on for hearing on April 26, 2006. RE:LAUNCH appeared by its counsel

Todd Hedin, and defendant PC Treasures, Inc. (“PC Treasures”) appeared by its counsel

Bryan Wilson. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers and considered the arguments

of counsel and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby

grants the motion in part and denies it in part for the reasons stated at the hearing and

summarized as follows. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 requires the court to issue a scheduling order

that, among other things, limits the time to join other parties and amend the pleadings. See

Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294, (9th Cir. 2000). Although Rule 15

typically governs the amendment of complaints, Rule 16 governs the amendment of a

complaint after the deadline provided for amendment of the pleadings in a pretrial order. 

Case 4:05-cv-00697-PJH Document 62 Filed 04/28/06 Page 1 of 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

Id. at 1294; Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir.1992). The

court treats a motion for leave to amend pleadings after the scheduling order deadline as a

motion to modify the scheduling order. See Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1294. Pursuant to Rule

16, a party may not obtain modification of a pretrial scheduling order "except upon a

showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). To

establish good cause, the party seeking modification must show that, despite acting

diligently, it cannot reasonably meet the order’s schedule. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory

committee notes (1983 amendment). 

The court’s pretrial scheduling order required that any motions for leave to amend

pleadings be filed by January 30, 2006. RE:LAUNCH filed its motion on March 16, 2006,

and sought leave to amend the complaint to correct its name in the case caption and to add

an additional cause of action. RE:LAUNCH has, however, failed to establish that it acted

diligently in discovering the availability of the new cause of action and thus has failed to

show good cause for modification of the pretrial scheduling order. Moreover, PC Treasures

has established the existence of some prejudice to its interests because it has already filed

its motion for summary judgment which does not address the purported new cause of

action and insufficient time remains before the dispositive motions deadline to challenge

the new claim. Accordingly, RE:LAUNCH’s motion as it relates to the additional cause of

action is DENIED. However, because PC Treasures does not object to a correction of

plaintiff’s name, RE:LAUNCH’s motion as it relates to plaintiff’s name change is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2006

_________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00697-PJH Document 62 Filed 04/28/06 Page 2 of 2