Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00389/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00389-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX LUKOVSKY, MUHAMMED KHAN,

LARRY MITCHELL, ANTONIO HUGGINS,

SAMSON ASRAT, ANATOLIY ZOLOTAREV,

YEVGENIY SKURATOVSKY, and VLADIMIR

VASILEVSKI,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL

TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, JOHN

SADORRA, RENATO SOLOMON, VERNON

CRAWLEY, MICHAEL ELLIS, PHILLIP

GINSBURG, and DORIS LANIER,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-00389 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE

THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT AND

VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this employment-discrimination action, plaintiffs seek leave to file a third amended

complaint in order to add two new defendants; an additional cause of action for a preexisting

plaintiff; and, a new cause of action challenging recent hiring decisions. Good cause has not

been shown to allow this eleventh-hour request. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

STATEMENT

Plaintiffs Alex Lukovsky, Muhammed Khan, Larry Mitchell, Antonio Huggins, and

Samson Asrat alleged that they were employees for defendant City of San Francisco, working

in the maintenance division of the City’s Municipal Transportation Agency (“MUNI”). 

Case 3:05-cv-00389-WHA Document 111 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiffs Yevgeniy Skuratovsky and Vladimir Vasilevski claimed to be former job applicants

of the City. Plaintiff Anatoliy Zolotarev alleged that he was a potential job applicant.

On May 20, 2005, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. In their third claim

for relief, plaintiffs alleged a deprivation of their civil rights under Section 1981 by defendants,

the City and County of San Francisco and five city employees. Underlying this claim, plaintiffs

alleged that defendants discriminated on the basis of race by giving preferential treatment to

Asian and Filipino applicants for the position of electrical-transit-system mechanic, or so-called

“7371” positions, with MUNI. In 2001, defendants purportedly hired several Asian and

Filipino applicants who did not meet the minimum qualifications for the job. Plaintiffs also

contended that defendants failed to inform potential candidates who were not Asian or Filipino

of available 7371 openings. According to plaintiffs, this failure included not only flawed

information about permanent openings in 2001, but also about provisional positions in 2000 that

ultimately could have led to permanent 7371 positions.

Plaintiffs filed the present motion for leave to amend on March 28, 2006. In their

proposed third amended complaint, plaintiffs seek to add a new claim alleging discriminatory

failure to hire plaintiff Skuratovsky for a job classification not previously at issue in this matter;

add a new claim challenging recent 7371 hiring decisions; and add two new individual

defendants not previously named, Eslon Hao and James Wachob.

ANALYSIS

Leave to amend a complaint shall be freely given when justice so requires under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). This standard is a liberal one. Rule 15(a), however,

does not apply when a district court has established a deadline for amended pleadings under

Rule 16(b). See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Once a scheduling order has been entered, the liberal policy favoring amendments no longer

applies. Subsequent amendments are not allowed without a request to first modify the

scheduling order. Id. at 608–09. A party’s failure to seek modification for the scheduling order

Case 3:05-cv-00389-WHA Document 111 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

is grounds to deny the untimely motion. Ibid. (citation omitted). Even if sought, any

modification must be based on a showing of good cause. 

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

diligence of the party seeking the amendment. . . . Although the

existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the

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. at 609 (citation omitted).

Under the case management order in effect in this case, “[l]eave to add any new parties

or pleading amendments must be sought by July 22, 2005” (Case Management Order)

(emphasis in original). Plaintiffs have not asked leave for modification of the scheduling order. 

This is ground for denial. Id. at 608–09. Moreover, plaintiffs’ entire motion is premised upon

the notion that Rule 15(a) is controlling, and as such they fail to state good cause.

In any event, plaintiffs admit to not being diligent in their investigation as one of the

reasons for seeking leave to amend. According to plaintiffs’ counsel (Benay Decl. ¶ 6):

I hold myself responsible for not knowing this important

information. Mr. Skuratovsky speaks rather heavily accented

English but I do not believe that I have any serious difficult [sic]

understanding him and it was my responsibility to ask the right

questions.

A lack of diligence alone is grounds to deny leave to amend. Zivkovic v. Southern California

Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

Finally, the proposed amended complaint would seriously prejudice defendants. The

new claims would require a great deal more discovery as they involve an entirely new and

unmentioned job classification, as well as two new individual defendants. It would be

particularly difficult to complete discovery on all these new issues as the non-expert discovery

cut-off date is June 30, 2006, and the trial date is quickly approaching. 

Case 3:05-cv-00389-WHA Document 111 Filed 04/26/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, this motion is DENIED. Finding no further argument necessary,

hearing on the motion is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2006. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00389-WHA Document 111 Filed 04/26/06 Page 4 of 4