Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02489/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02489-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Oross
Plaintiff
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco
Defendant
William Watters
Plaintiff

Document Text:

ORDER — Case Nos. 3:16-cv-01588-LB and 3:16-cv-02489-LB

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

San Francisco Division

MATTHEW GALLEGOS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF 

SAN FRANCISCO & DOES 1-5,

Defendants.

FRANK OROSS AND WILLIAM 

WATTERS,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP 

OF SAN FRANCISCO,

 Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-01588-LB

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

AMEND

[Re: ECF No. 53]

Case No. 3:16-cv-02489-LB

[Re: ECF No. 43]

The plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint to add state-law claims. The court finds that 

it can decide the motion without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and grants leave to 

amend. 

First, it is the court‘s practice — and it was the court‘s intent here, as set forth in the initial 

scheduling order — to have the last date to amend the pleadings after mediation. In employment 

cases, it is important to do core discovery, gain an understanding of the participants, depose 

percipient witnesses, and then try to resolve the case. The court‘s concern is always that the spend 

Case 3:16-cv-02489-LB Document 52 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 3
ORDER — Case Nos. 3:16-cv-01588-LB and 3:16-cv-02489-LB 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

of litigation will overtake the dollar value of it. As the parties will recall with the disputes about 

ESI discovery, the court tried to stage and manage discovery toward the end of mediation. (See

Order — ECF No. 44.)

Second, the court has refined its practice since the parties‘ initial case-management conference 

and now sets deadlines to amend pleadings to some reasonable date after the post-mediation casemanagement conference, and before fact discovery closes. That did not happen here, but it 

illustrates the court‘s intent and approach: to keep amendments within Rule 15(a) land, as opposed 

to Rule 16(b) land, until after mediation, in part to keep fees in check. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), 

16(b).

Given this approach, the court‘s intended standard to evaluate a motion to amend was Rule 

15(a). The court applies the Rule 15(a) standard with ―extreme liberality.‖ See Eminence Capital, 

LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). The Rule 15(a) five-factor test does not 

militate against amendment here; the factors are: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to 

the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff previously amended 

his complaint. See Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004). Delay alone is 

insufficient to justify denying leave to amend. E.g., DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 

183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). Of the factors, prejudice to the opposing party is the ―touchstone of the 

inquiry under rule 15(a)‖ and ―carries the greatest weight.‖ See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 

1052. The defendant does not assert prejudice. Absent prejudice or a strong showing on other 

factors, a presumption exists under Rule 15(a) favoring granting leave to amend. See id. The party 

opposing a motion to amend bears the burden of showing prejudice. DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 

(9th Cir. 1987). The defendant argues bad faith; the court does not see it. The defendant also 

argues futility based on the statutes of limitations. The argument spans one paragraph, and the 

court thinks the argument is better raised in a motion and, at this stage, probably a summaryjudgment motion.

The result does not change under Rule 16(b). With motions to amend filed after a cut-off date 

for amended pleadings, the plaintiffs must satisfy the more stringent ―good cause‖ test. See

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 1992). ―Unlike Rule 

Case 3:16-cv-02489-LB Document 52 Filed 02/27/17 Page 2 of 3
ORDER — Case Nos. 3:16-cv-01588-LB and 3:16-cv-02489-LB 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

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.‖ Id. at 609. On the record 

before it, the court finds good cause and grants leave to amend. 

This disposes of ECF No. 53 in Case No. 3:16-cv-01588-LB and ECF No. 43 in Case No. 

3:16-cv-02489-LB.

The court directs the parties to confer about their schedule and submit a updated casemanagement statement by March 2, 2017. The court sets a case-management conference for 

March 9, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2017 __________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02489-LB Document 52 Filed 02/27/17 Page 3 of 3