Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02465/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02465-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02465-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JASON GOMEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE GREAT AMERICAN PLUMBING 

COMPANY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-02465-EJD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 40

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Jason Gomez and Ezekiel Contreras were employed by Defendant The Great 

American Plumbing Company, Inc. (“GAPC”) as construction and repair plumbers. They allege 

in this wage-and-hour action that GAPC failed to pay them accurate wages. On September 28, 

2015, this court issued a Case Management Order (“CMO”) which, inter alia, provided a deadline 

by which the parties could amend their pleadings according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 

Dkt. No. 27. That deadline expired on or about November 27, 2015, and the parties thereafter 

stipulated that Plaintiffs Jason Gomez and Ezekiel Contreras (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) could file 

a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in order to remove class action allegations. Dkt. No. 34. 

The SAC has been the operative pleading in this action since late December, 2015. 

Plaintiffs now move for leave to file a third amended complaint in order to add a new 

defendant, Beryl Evelyn Blackstone, because she is part-owner of GAPC and, according to them, 

had the power to discipline Plaintiffs and control their compensation. Dkt. No. 40. GAPC and 

another defendant, Mark Anthony McGinnis (collectively, “Defendants”), oppose the motion. 

This matter is suitable for decision without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). Having 

Case 5:15-cv-02465-EJD Document 48 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02465-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

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

reviewed the parties’ motion pleadings in conjunction with the record, the court has determined 

that Plaintiffs failed to establish the good cause necessary to justify the amendment sought. 

Accordingly, the court will decline their request for leave to file a third amended complaint. 

II. DISCUSSION

Because there appears some confusion as to the applicable legal standard, the court first 

frames the issue before it. Though Plaintiffs argue the amendment is appropriate under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the instant request is primarily governed by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 16 and properly construed as a motion to amend the CMO.1 This is so because the 

deadline for amendment to the pleadings expired months before Plaintiffs made the amendment 

request. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-608 (1992) (“Once the district 

court had filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 which 

established a timetable for amending pleadings that rule’s standards controlled.”). 

Under Rule 16, a party seeking to amend a scheduling order must demonstrate “good 

cause” for such relief. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good 

cause and with the judge’s consent.”). Diligence on the part of the moving party is the main focus 

of the inquiry. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. If, and only if, the requisite good cause is shown, 

the court then turns to an examination of the relevant factors under Rule 15. Hood v. Hartford 

Life & Accident Ins. Co., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 

(“If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). To the extent Plaintiffs contend there is 

no difference between the analyses that must be undertaken pursuant to Rules 15 and 16, they are 

mistaken. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (explaining that an evaluation of good cause under Rule 16 is 

not coextensive with an analysis under Rule 15). 

The court is also mindful of what does and does not constitute good cause. “The district 

court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the 

party seeking the extension.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “[N]ot only must parties 

 

1

To be sure, the court notified the parties in the CMO that amendments sought after the deadline 

to amend the pleadings “must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.”

Case 5:15-cv-02465-EJD Document 48 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02465-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

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

participate from the outset in creating a workable Rule 16 scheduling order but they must also 

diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course of the litigation.” 

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). “[C]arelessness is not 

compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 

F.2d at 609.

Here, Plaintiffs have not shown they diligently attempted to discover Blackstone’s 

potential involvement in the conduct described in their pleadings. To that end, the court observes 

this action was commenced over one year ago and, save for the removal of class action allegations, 

has not materially changed. GAPC has always been named as a defendant, and Blackstone was 

listed in the Certificate of Interested Parties filed by Defendants on September 2, 2016. Dkt. No. 

24. Thus, the fact that Blackstone may at the very least have information relevant to Plaintiffs’ 

claims was known by that date. Yet, in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed on 

September 25, 2016 (Dkt. No. 26), the parties indicated that no amendments were anticipated. 

The court relied on that statement to set the deadline for amendments to the pleadings as well as 

other deadlines, including those related to the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive 

motions.

Moreover, Plaintiffs do not convincingly explain why they waited until May, 2016, to seek 

to add Blackstone as a defendant in light of the deadline set according to their own representation. 

Plaintiffs suggest they were unaware of potential claims against Blackstone until they began 

preparing a mediation brief submitted sometime between January, 2016, and April, 2016. But 

given Defendants’ identification of Blackstone several months earlier, Plaintiffs also needed to 

explain what efforts they undertook between September, 2015, and the date the mediation brief 

was prepared to determine whether or not Blackstone was a relevant witness or someone that 

should be added to this action as a defendant. This explanation is particularly relevant under these 

circumstances because it appears that some of the information now cited by Plaintiffs in support of 

this motion, such as a filing with the State of California Contractor’s Licensing Board, has been 

available to them since the commencement of this action. 

Case 5:15-cv-02465-EJD Document 48 Filed 06/09/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02465-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

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

The Ninth Circuit has advised that “[a] scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, 

idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 

610. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate they diligently attempted to adhere to the deadlines

designated in the CMO, and have not shown that the CMO provided an inadequate amount of time 

for them to discover Blackstone’s involvement. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now seek to 

circumvent the same deadlines they helped create. In the absence of good cause, Plaintiffs will not

be permitted leave to file a third amended complaint. 

III. ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (Dkt. No. 40) is DENIED. 

The hearing scheduled for June 16, 2016, is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02465-EJD Document 48 Filed 06/09/16 Page 4 of 4