Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04879/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04879-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
HPM Investments, Inc.
Cross-claimant
Crystal Ivy
Plaintiff
Farooq Qassim Mayet
Cross-claimant
Richmond Auto Sales
Defendant
Cheng Saephan
Plaintiff
Rajeshwar Singh
Cross-claimant

Document Text:

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

CRYSTAL IVY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FAROOQ QASSIM MAYET, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04879-HSG 

GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE A SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 41

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint

to add a new defendant. Defendants did not file an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion and the time 

for doing so has passed. The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority,

and the record in this case, and finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

In June 2013, Plaintiffs Crystal Ivy and Cheng Saephan purchased a 1999 Honda Accord

from Richmond Auto Sales, a business registered to Farooq Qassim Mayet and Rajeshwar Singh

(“Defendants”). Dkt. No. 41-1. At the time of the purchase, the vehicle’s odometer indicated 

mileage of 110,841 miles. Id. On February 19, 2014, Plaintiff Ivy was involved in an automobile 

accident. After the accident, the insurance carrier discovered that the vehicle’s odometer had 

indicated 282,646 miles during a smog inspection on January 10, 2011, more than two years 

before Plaintiffs purchased the vehicle. Id. 

On November 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants and Doe Defendants 

1-50, alleging violations of the Federal Odometer Act, 49 U.S.C. § 32701 et seq. Dkt. No. 1. On 

July 28, 2015, Plaintiffs propounded discovery requests. Defendants’ September 8, 2015

discovery responses revealed that HPM Investments, Inc. was the owner of the subject vehicle at 

Case 4:14-cv-04879-HSG Document 46 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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 time of the sale. See Dkt. No. 41, Ex. A. HPM Investments was not named as a vehicle 

“owner” in Defendant’s initial disclosures. 

Per the Court’s scheduling order, July 1, 2015 was the last day to amend the pleadings. 

Dkt. No. 30. On November 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this motion seeking leave to file a second 

amended complaint to replace Doe Defendant 1 with newly-discovered HPM Investments, Inc.

1

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“A party seeking a second or successive amendment ‘may amend its pleading only with 

the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.’” KFD Enterprises, Inc. v. City of 

Eureka, No. C-08-4571 MMC, 2011 WL 1750783, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2011) (quoting Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 15(a)). “Rule 15 advises the court that ‘leave shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.’” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (per 

curiam). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

“Once the Court has entered a scheduling order, the liberal policy favoring amendments 

no long[er] applies.” Navarro v. Eskanos & Adler, No. C 06-02231 WHA, 2006 WL 3533039, at 

*2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2006). Instead, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16(b) governs. 

“Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking 

to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 

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

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The moving party must show

good cause “for not having amended [the] complaint[ ] before the time specified in the scheduling 

order expired.” Bonneau v. SAP Am., Inc., No. C 03-5516 PJH, 2004 WL 2714406, at *1 (N.D. 

Cal. Nov. 29, 2004). 

III. ANALYSIS

Here, Plaintiffs have established good cause for failing to amend the complaint before the 

 

1 On February 4, 2015, Magistrate Judge Ryu granted Plaintiff’s motion to file a first amended 

complaint to correctly name the Plaintiffs; “[t]he names of each Plaintiff were inadvertently 

transposed on the initial complaint.” Dkt. No. 26 at 4-5. Plaintiffs filed the first amended 

complaint on May 26, 2015, Dkt. No. 24. 

Case 4:14-cv-04879-HSG Document 46 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court’s deadline. There is no evidence that Plaintiffs could have obtained the information 

concerning HPM Investments until after conducting discovery. Defendants’ discovery responses 

revealed that they sold the vehicle to Plaintiffs as a consignment sale for HPM Investments, who 

Defendants allege is the true owner of the vehicle. Given that Defendants do not oppose 

Plaintiffs’ motion and that this is newly-discovered information that Plaintiffs could not 

reasonably have learned earlier, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have established good cause. See

Fru-Con Const. Corp. v. Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist., No. CIV.S-05-583LKKGGH, 2006 WL 

3733815, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2006) (finding good cause where Defendant sought leave to 

amend pleading two months after learning new information through discovery); see also Navarro, 

2006 WL 3533039, at *2. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are

directed to file the second amended complaint by December 21, 2015. The parties are 

ORDERED to appear at a case management conference on January 5, 2016 to discuss the 

schedule for pretrial proceedings and trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/14/15

Case 4:14-cv-04879-HSG Document 46 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 3