Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00532/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00532-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Centex Homes
Defendant
Centex Real Estate Corporation
Defendant
Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc.
Plaintiff
St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company
Plaintiff

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation; 

FIDELITY AND GUARANTY 

INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC., 

an Iowa corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada general 

partnership, CENTEX REAL ESTATE 

CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation; 

and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-00532-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

On August 7, 2015, the court issued the pretrial scheduling order. ECF No. 16. 

On October 13, 2015, parties filed a stipulation and proposed order agreeing to plaintiffs’ filing a 

first amended complaint. ECF No. 17. On the same day, plaintiffs filed the first amended 

complaint. ECF No. 18. 

Once the court has entered a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16, the 

standards of Rule 16 rather than Rule 15 govern amendment of the pleadings. See Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 1992); Eckert Cold Storage, Inc. v. 

Behl, 943 F.Supp. 1230, 1232–33 (E.D.Cal. May 3, 1996). A scheduling order is not “a frivolous 

Case 2:15-cv-00532-KJM-EFB Document 20 Filed 11/12/15 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

piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” 

Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D.Me. 1985). Orders entered before 

the final pretrial conference may be modified only “upon a showing of good cause.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). The good cause requirement of Rule 16 primarily considers the diligence of 

the party seeking the amendment. 

When evaluating whether a party was diligent, the Ninth Circuit has determined 

that “the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for modification. If that party 

was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. at 610. When the proposed modification is an 

amendment to the pleadings, the moving party may establish good cause by showing “(1) that [he 

or she] was diligent in assisting the court in creating a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [his or 

her] noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding [his or her] 

diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could not have been 

reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference; and (3) that 

[he or she] was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that 

[he or she] could not comply with the order.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 

(E.D.Cal. Jun. 16, 1999) (citations omitted). 

Here, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint without leave of the court, after having 

agreed that “[n]o further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave 

of court, good cause having been shown.” ECF No. 16 at 2. Nevertheless, plaintiffs have 

established good cause, ECF No. 17 at 2, and there is no prejudice to defendants who agreed to 

the filing and having already answered the complaint. The court GRANTS plaintiffs leave to 

amend the complaint NUNC PRO TUNC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 11, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00532-KJM-EFB Document 20 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 2