Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01703/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01703-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Clean Water Act

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER 

ALLIANCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSUMNES CORPORATION dba 

MURIETA EQUESTRIAN CENTER,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-1703 DB

ORDER

Each of the parties in the above-captioned case has consented to proceed before a United 

States Magistrate Judge. See U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly, this matter has been reassigned to 

the undersigned for all purposes. On February 10, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to 

amend along with a proposed second amended complaint. (ECF No. 42.) Defendant filed an 

opposition on February 25, 2022. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff filed a reply on March 4, 2022. (ECF 

No. 47.) Plaintiff’s motion was taken under submission that same day. (ECF No. 46.)

A pretrial schedule issued in this action on April 5, 2021. (ECF No. 22.) “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 control[].” Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 48 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 3
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

standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In this regard, under Rule 16(b), 

plaintiffs “must show good cause for not having amended their complaints before the time 

specified in the scheduling order expired.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 

(9th Cir. 2000).

“Courts within this Circuit ‘have articulated and undertaken [a] three-step inquiry in 

resolving the question of ‘diligence’ in the context of determining good cause under Rule 16[.]’”

Morgal v. Maricopa County Bd. of Sup’rs, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. Ariz. 2012) (quoting Grant v. 

United States, 2011 WL 5554878, at *4 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)). 

Under that inquiry: To demonstrate diligence under Rule 16’s ‘good 

cause’ standard, the movant may be required to show the following: 

(1) that he was diligent in assisting the court in creating a workable 

Rule 16 order; (2) that his noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline 

occurred or will occur, notwithstanding his diligent efforts to 

comply, because of the development of matters which could not have 

been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 

scheduling conference; and (3) that he was diligent in seeking 

amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that he 

could not comply with the order.

Id.

Here, the court finds that plaintiff has satisfied the good cause standard. See generally

Analytical Measurements, Inc. v. Keuffel & Esser Co., 843 F. Supp. 920, 926 (D. N.J. 1993) 

(“Whether to permit the amendment of a final pretrial order is entirely within the discretionary 

power of the trial court.”). In this regard, plaintiff’s briefing establishes that after plaintiff named 

Kaitlyn Kalua as an injured member for purposes of standing, Kalua began employment with a 

California State agency clouding her ability to participate in this litigation. (Pl.’s Mot. (ECF No. 

42) at 9.) That in September of 2021 the Ninth Circuit issued an important decision relevant to 

this litigation. See Inland Empire Waterkeeper v. Corona Clay Co., 17 F.4th 825, 829 (9th Cir. 

2021) (“holding “that if the required jurisdictional discharge into United States waters has 

occurred, a CWA citizen suit can be premised on ongoing or reasonably expected monitoring or 

reporting violations”). These events occurred relatively recently and thus plaintiff’s actions can

////

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 48 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 3
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

be characterized as diligent. Moreover, defendant will not be prejudiced by granting plaintiff’s 

motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s February 10, 2022 motion to amend (ECF No. 42) is granted; and 

2. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within seven days of the date of this 

order.

Dated: March 8, 2022

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.consent/coastkeeper1703.lta.ord

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 48 Filed 03/09/22 Page 3 of 3