Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00235/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00235-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

FRANCISCO SOTO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-235-LAB (JMA)

ORDER REJECTING REPORT

vs. AND RECOMMENDATION

R. GINES, RN, et al.,

Defendants.

Defendants Gines and Hunt answered Soto’s First Amended Complaint on

March 30, 2012, after the Court denied their motion to dismiss. Then, on June 7,

Magistrate Judge Adler issued a Scheduling Order. That Order said, front and center,

“Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional

pleadings shall be filed on or before July 9, 2012.” (Doc. No. 40, ¶ 1.) 

Defendants filed an amended answer, however, on November 2, months after

that deadline. The purpose of the amended answer was to assert the affirmative

defense that because Soto was allegedly injured while working in prison, he has to

bring a worker’s compensation claim rather than a civil rights claim. The amended

answer was stricken because it was late, and Judge Adler now recommends that

leave to amend not be granted. 

//

- 1 -

Case 3:11-cv-00235-LAB-JMA Document 57 Filed 08/22/13 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

Judge Adler is absolutely right that once a scheduling order has been issued

in a case, amendments to pleadings are governed in the first instance by Rule 16

rather than Rule 15. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08

(9th Cir. 1992). Specifically, the Court has to ask first whether the party seeking to

amend has good cause for being late, which is really a diligence question. Coleman

v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Only then does the analysis

reach Rule 15, which of course liberally allows for amendments. Id. 

Judge Adler is also right that Defendants’ request for leave to amend improperly

leads with Rule 15, and indeed avoids altogether the fact that the request comes over

four months after the deadline for amendments set by the Scheduling Order. It is no

doubt a feeble request.

This said, the Court disagrees with Judge Adler that Defendants make no effort

to explain their late request and that “[t]he Court is left to speculate why Defendants

could not have moved earlier to assert an affirmative defense of worker’s

compensation exclusivity . . . .” (R&R at 4.) Defendants’ request for leave says they

“were unaware that the Workers’ Compensation defense was applicable in this case

when they initially answered plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint,” and it says that they

attempted to amend as soon as they learned this. (Doc. No. 49 at 2.) A declaration

submitted by Defendants’ attorney goes into a little bit more detail. (See Gruenberg

Decl., ¶¶ 3–4; Supplemental Gruenberg Decl., ¶¶ 3–5.) The explanation isn’t

exemplary, to be sure, but the Court disagrees with Judge Adler that Defendants

haven’t offered one at all.

The Court finds, therefore, that Defendants have shown good cause for not

amending by the deadline Judge Adler set, and it further finds that leave to amend is

proper here under Rule 15. It sees no evidence of bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice

to Soto. See Griggs v. Pace American Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 

There may be some futility to the proposed amendment, however. Soto isn’t just

claiming that he’s entitled to compensation for his on-the-job injuries, after all. He’s

- 2 -

Case 3:11-cv-00235-LAB-JMA Document 57 Filed 08/22/13 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

claiming that once he sought treatment for those injuries prison doctors (or nurses)

were deliberately indifferent to them. It’s hard to see how that is a worker’s

compensation issue. Nonetheless, the Court will allow Defendants to make that

argument. Their request for leave to amend their answer is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 21, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 -

Case 3:11-cv-00235-LAB-JMA Document 57 Filed 08/22/13 Page 3 of 3