Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00216/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00216-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

BLAZONA CONCRETE 

CONSTRUCTION, INC., a 

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN SAFETY INDEMNITY 

COMPANY, a Georgia 

corporation; AMERICAN SAFETY 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a 

Georgia corporation, and DOES 

1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-00216-JAM-CKD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

This matter is before the Court on Blazona Concrete 

Construction’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to File Second 

Amended Complaint.1

 TIG Insurance Company (“Defendant”), 

successor by merger to American Safety Indemnity Company, opposed 

the Motion. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is denied. 

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for November 1, 2016.

Case 2:16-cv-00216-JAM-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/08/16 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

2

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In February 2013, Plaintiff was named in a lawsuit

(“Underlying Action”), filed by Carefree Natomas Limited 

Partnership and Templeton Development Corporation in Sacramento 

County Superior Court, that concerned construction work Plaintiff 

performed while covered under a Commercial General Liability 

Insurance contract that Plaintiff held with Defendant. 

Declaration of Megan A. Shapiro in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion 

(“Shapiro Decl.”) at ¶ 2–6, ECF No. 16-1. Plaintiff claims that 

it tendered the defense of that action to Defendant and Defendant 

denied tender in violation of the contract. Id. at ¶ 6–10; Mot. 

at 3. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in Sacramento 

Superior Court and, on February 3, 2016, Defendant removed the

action to federal court. Shapiro Decl. at ¶ 8; Notice of 

Removal, ECF No. 1. This Court issued a Pre-trial Scheduling 

Order on April 5, 2016, which barred joinder of additional 

amendments to pleadings “except with leave of court, good cause 

having been shown.” Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order at 1:22–

24, ECF No. 14. Plaintiff filed this Motion for Leave to File a 

Second Amended Complaint on September 27, 2016. ECF No. 16.

The Superior Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment in the Underlying Action on December 2, 2015. 

Declaration of Katy A. Nelson in Support of Opposition (“Nelson 

Decl.”), Exh. 1, ECF No. 18-1. On that basis, the Superior Court 

ordered Plaintiff dismissed from the Underlying Action on 

February 5, 2016. Nelson Decl., Exh. 3; Reply Declaration of 

Megan A. Shapiro (“Shapiro Reply Decl.”) at ¶ 9, ECF No. 19-1. 

The Operative Complaint in this matter alleges two causes of 

Case 2:16-cv-00216-JAM-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/08/16 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

3

action: (1) Declaratory Relief as to Defendant’s Duty to Defend; 

and (2) Declaratory Relief as to Defendant’s Duty to Indemnify. 

Notice of Removal, Exh. C at 6, ECF No. 1-3. Plaintiff’s 

proposed Second Amended Complaint would include just one cause of 

action, Breach of Contract, for which Plaintiff seeks damages. 

Plaintiff’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint at 4, ECF No. 17. 

In its Reply, Plaintiff states that “the causes of action for 

declaratory relief are no longer applicable here” and that “the 

only remedy available to [Plaintiff] is through a cause of action 

for breach of contract.” Rep. at 2.

II. OPINION

A. Legal Standard

Once a pretrial scheduling order has issued under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16, Rule 16(b) governs amendments to the complaint and 

Rule 15(a)’s policy favoring amendment no longer applies. 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–8 (9th 

Cir. 1992). In such circumstances, a federal court will only 

consider whether the moving party has satisfied Rule 15(a) after 

the court finds good cause for amendment. Cf. Id. at 608 (citing 

Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C. 1987)). “Rule 

16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence 

of the party seeking the amendment.” Id. at 609. Good cause 

requires the moving party to show that scheduling deadlines could 

not reasonably be met despite the party’s diligence. Id.

This Court issued a Pre-trial Scheduling Order nearly six 

months before Plaintiff filed the present Motion. Therefore, the 

Rule 16(b) standard applies. 

Case 2:16-cv-00216-JAM-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/08/16 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

4

B. Judicial Notice

Attached to counsel’s declaration, Defendant submits copies 

of Bates-stamped orders from the Superior Court of the State of 

California for the County of Sacramento. ECF No. 18-1, Exh. 1, 

3. This Court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, 

both within and without the federal judicial system, if those 

proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” U.S. ex 

rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 

F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the 

Court takes notice of these Superior Court orders. 

C. Analysis

Both Plaintiff and Defendant primarily argue this Motion 

under the Rule 15(a) standard rather than under Rule 16(b). See

Mot. at 4–6; Opp. at 5–10; Rep. 3–7. Plaintiff’s request could 

be denied on this basis alone. Despite this deficiency, the 

Court will consider whether Plaintiff satisfies Rule 16(b)’s good 

cause standard.

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for this Court to deviate 

from the Pre-trial Scheduling Order. Plaintiff knew as early as 

December 2, 2015—the date of the Superior Court’s favorable 

ruling on Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion—that the Underlying 

Action against Plaintiff would be dismissed. Even measuring from 

the final disposition date, the Underlying Action resolved two 

months before this Court issued the Scheduling Order and nearly 

eight months before Plaintiff filed the present Motion. Such 

delay is the opposite of diligence. 

Plaintiff’s hope that the case might reach settlement before 

trial does not support its argument. Plaintiff knew that trial 

Case 2:16-cv-00216-JAM-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/08/16 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

5

was on the horizon: the parties set a date for a jury trial that 

the parties estimated would take two to four days. Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order at 7:4–6. Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated

belief that the case might settle is not good cause. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. 

Given Plaintiff’s concession that its causes of action for 

declaratory relief are no longer applicable, the Court hereby 

orders the parties to submit briefs, not to exceed five pages, on 

whether the case is now moot. Briefs are to be submitted, 

concurrently, no later November 15, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00216-JAM-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/08/16 Page 5 of 5