Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00060/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00060-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINETTE CHANDLER, an

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY,

LLC, an unknown business

entity; DOES 1-25, inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 14cv0060 BEN(RBB)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION TO

MODIFY THE COURT'S SCHEDULING

ORDER [ECF NO. 16]

Hon. Ruben B. Brooks

Plaintiff Antoinette Chandler filed her Ex Parte Motion to

Modify the Court's Scheduling Order on June 27, 2014 [ECF No. 16]. 

Defendant Morgan Stanley Smith Barney filed an Opposition on July

1, 2014 [ECF No. 17].

Plaintiff seeks to extend the date by which she can file a

motion to amend her pleadings. The Court's Case Management

Conference Order requires that all motions to add parties or file

additional pleadings be filed so they are heard by July 7, 2014. 

(Case Management Conf. Order 2, ECF No. 10.) The Plaintiff alleges

that on June 25, 2014, she sought to schedule a hearing date for a

motion to amend. (See Pl.'s Ex Parte Mot. Modify Attach. #1 Mem.

1 14cv0060 BEN(RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-00060-BEN-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 4
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

P. & A. 4, ECF No. 16.) The next available date for a hearing on

Plaintiff's proposed motion was August 4, 2014. (Id. at 2.)

Chandler seeks to add a Defendant, Morgan Stanley Investment

Management (MSIM), a division of Defendant Morgan Stanley Smith

Barney, LLC (MSSB). (Id. at 1-2.) According to the Plaintiff, on

June 13, 2014, she "learned that MSSB was putting the fault on MSIM

for not paying Plaintiff her commissions -- a position that had not

been foreseen or anticipated by Plaintiff until that time." (Id.

at 3.) She continues, "Plaintiff then deposed two MSIM managers on

June 24, 2014 and June 25, 2014. Neither manager was able to

confirm that MSIM had paid MSSB the commissions following

Plaintiff's termination." (Id.)

Plaintiff also seeks to add a claim for constructive

discharge. (Id. at 6.) She does not explain why this claim was

not added sooner. Instead, Chandler asserts that at her

deposition, she stated that she resigned from her employment

because "she was not being paid her commissions." (Id.) Plaintiff

concludes that "there is no prejudice with regard to allowing [her]

to amend her complaint to add a claim for constructive

termination." (Id.)

The Defendant argues that "Chandler has not provided any

justification for her delay in seeking to add MSIM as a defendant." 

(Def. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC's Opp'n 8, ECF No. 17.) It

states that Plaintiff was provided information about MSIM in April

of 2014, when she received Defendant's initial disclosures. (Id.) 

Defendant maintains that before filing her Complaint, Plaintiff was

aware of "the payment structure for the referral fees from MSIM." 

(Id.)

2 14cv0060 BEN(RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-00060-BEN-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/02/14 Page 2 of 4
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

MSSB also argues that "Plaintiff cannot show that she has

pursued her proposed constructive discharge claim with the required

diligence." (Id. at 5.) The Defendant asserts that Chandler "must

have known of the facts she contends support this proposed claim

when she resigned in July 2012, long before she filed even the

current operative Complaint." (Id. at 6.) The Defendant also

states that it and MSIM would be prejudiced by the addition of new

claims and a new defendant. (Id. at 10.)

[D]istrict courts have applied a two-step analysis for

use when a motion to amend the pleadings is made after

the deadline set in the scheduling order has passed: (1)

the moving party must satisfy the good cause standard of

Rule 16(b), and (2) if the movant satisfies Rule 16(b),

the movant must pass the tests for amendment under Rule

15(a).

3 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 16.13[1][a],

at 16-52 (3d ed. 2013) (footnote omitted); see also Lambey v.

Calif. Dep't of Ins., No. 2:11-CV-02392-KJM-KJN, 2013 WL 3992132,

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2013) ("[Rule 16(b)'s good cause

evaluation 'is not coextensive with an inquiry into the propriety

of the amendment under . . . Rule 15.'") (citation omitted).

Chandler has satisfied the good cause standard under Rule

16(b) for not seeking to add MSIM as a party earlier. MSIM played

a part in the underlying transaction, and this was known to all. 

But it's failure to pay referral fees to MSSB was confirmed on June

24 and 25, 2014. 

Plaintiff has not, however, satisfied the Rule 16(b) standard

for adding a constructive discharge claim to her Complaint. 

Chandler has made no showing that she diligently pursued adding

this theory of liability. "Plaintiff was not diligent . . .

because she was aware of the facts and theories supporting

3 14cv0060 BEN(RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-00060-BEN-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/02/14 Page 3 of 4
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

amendment since the inception of the action." Calderon v. Target

Corp., No. 12-CV-1781-MMA(PCL), 2013 WL 4401430, at *5 (S.D. Cal.

Aug. 15, 2013).

Chandler's claim that there is no prejudice to the opposing

party is not a substitute for diligence. The absence of prejudice

does not satisfy the good cause standard of Rule 16(b). See

LaRiviere v. Phillips, Civil Action No. 07-CV-01723-WYD-CBS, 2010

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85125, at *33 (D. Colo. July 15, 2010); Estate of

Ratcliffe v. Pradera Realty Co., No. 05 Civ. 10272 (JFK), 2007 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 78070, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2007). At the same

time, Defendant's claims of prejudice are not persuasive.

Consequently, the Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Modify the

Court's Scheduling Order is GRANTED IN PART. The deadline for

filing a motion to amend to add Morgan Stanley Investment

Management as a party is extended to permit the filing of that

motion so that it may be heard by August 5, 2014. In all other

respects, Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Modify is DENIED. No

other dates in the Court's Case Management Conference Order [ECF

No. 10] are extended by this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 2, 2014 _____________________________

Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge

cc:

Judge Benitez

All Parties of Record

I:\Chambers Brooks\CASES\CHANDLER0060\OrderGrInPartEPMotModfyCtsSchOrd.wpd 4 14cv0060 BEN(RBB)

Case 3:14-cv-00060-BEN-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/02/14 Page 4 of 4