Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00270/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00270-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Byron Chapman
Plaintiff
City of Lincoln
Defendant

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BYRON CHAPMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF LINCOLN, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-00270-GEB-EFB 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff seeks leave under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a) “to amend the complaint to add new 

allegations of discrimination under Title II of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act.” (Notice of Mot. & Mot. for Leave to Amend 

Compl. 1:19–20, ECF No. 13.) Defendant opposes the motion, 

arguing “Plaintiff does not discuss why he has ‘good cause’ to 

amend his complaint.” (Mem. of P.&A. ISO Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s 

Mot. for Leave to Am. Compl. 6:13-15, ECF No. 14.) 

Since a pretrial scheduling order has been filed that 

has an amended pleadings provision, a motion seeking to amend 

pleadings is governed first by Rule 16(b), and only secondarily 

by Rule 15(a). Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating plaintiff’s “ability to amend 

his complaint [is] governed [first] by Rule 16(b), not Rule 

15(a)”). The following provision is contained in the amended 

pleading deadline portion of the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) 

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MCE-EFB Document 21 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 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 

2 

Order, filed on April 27, 2015: “No further service, joinder of 

parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted, except with 

leave of Court for good cause shown.” (Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Order 1:18–21, ECF No. 11 (emphasis added).) 

Plaintiff failed to address the “good cause” standard 

in his opening brief, and the Court need not consider an argument 

raised for the first time in a reply brief. Since the “good 

cause” standard has not been addressed, Plaintiff’s motion is 

DENIED. 

Dated: January 6, 2016 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MCE-EFB Document 21 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 2