Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02048/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02048-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretto High School
Defendant
Michele Padgett
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

 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter to be submitted on the briefing.

L.R. 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MICHELE PADGETT

NO. CIV. S 03-2048 MCE GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LORETTO HIGH SCHOOL, THE

INSTITUTE OF THE BLESSED

VIRGIN MARY, DOES 1 through

20, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On March 8, 2005, Plaintiff Michelle Padgett filed a motion

to amend her complaint and modify Court’s Pretrial Scheduling

Order (“PSO”). Because Plaintiff has failed to show good cause,

her motion is DENIED.1

//

//

Case 2:03-cv-02048-MCE -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/22/05 Page 1 of 6
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

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an employment dispute between

Plaintiff and Defendant Loretto High School, The Institute of the

Blessed Virgin Mary. Plaintiff asserted four causes of action in

her complaint, including (1) Violation of the Family Medical

Leave Act 29 U.S.C. 2601, et seq., (2) Retaliation, (3) Breach of

Contract, and (4) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith

and Fair Dealing. For purposes of this motion, only Plaintiff’s

retaliation claim is at issue.

On January 30, 2004, the Court issued its Pretrial

Scheduling Order (“PSO”), which stated that no amendments to

pleadings would be allowed without leave of the Court upon a

showing of good cause. (Cts. Pretrial Sched. Order at 1.) 

On February 2, 2005, Plaintiff and Defendant participated in

a mandatory settlement conference (“MSC”). At the MSC, it came

to light that Plaintiff and Defendant had different views as to

(1) whether Plaintiff’s retaliation cause of action was based on

statute or common law and (2) Plaintiff’s ability to recover for

emotional distress damages on her retaliation cause of action. 

(Pl.’s Not. of Mot. to Amend at 1:27-28); (Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s

Mot. to Amend at 2:12-19.)

Thereafter, on March 8, 2005, Plaintiff filed the present

motion asking the Court for leave to amend her complaint. 

Plaintiff argues that she needs to amend her complaint in order

to alleviate any confusion with regard to her retaliation claim. 

(Pl.’s Mot. to Amend at 3:6-8.) Plaintiff claims that while she

intended the claim to be based on common law grounds, Defendant

Case 2:03-cv-02048-MCE -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/22/05 Page 2 of 6
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

 Unless otherwise stated, all references to “Rule” or 2

“Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

3

mistakenly believed the claim was based on statutory grounds. 

(Pl.s’ Mot. to Amend at 3:9-13.) Plaintiff contends that good

cause is present because she diligently moved to amend her

complaint upon realizing Defendant’s confusion. (Mar. 8, 2005

Decl. of Jill P. Telfer at ¶ 7.)

Defendant, on the other hand, opposes Plaintiff’s motion to

amend and argues that good cause has not been shown. Defendant

contends that Plaintiff is attempting to change a statutory cause

of action under the Family Medical Leave Act (“Act”) into a

common law cause of action in order to recover emotional distress

damages that are not recoverable under the Act. (Def.’s Opp. to

Pl.’s Mot. to Amend at 2:12-21.) 

 

STANDARD

Once a district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 that establishes 2

a party’s ability to amend pleadings, Rule 16 controls as to

whether or not the PSO can be modified. Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-608 (9th Cir. 1992)(noting

that a party seeking to amend pleadings after the date specified

in the pretrial scheduling order must first show good cause under

Rule 16(b) and then show that amendment is proper under Rule

(15)). Prior to the final pretrial conference, a court may

modify a status order upon a showing of “good cause.” See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 16(b).

Case 2:03-cv-02048-MCE -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/22/05 Page 3 of 6
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

4

“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, 975 F.2d at 609. In explaining

this standard, the Ninth Circuit has stated that:

[a] district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it

cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party

seeking the extension.’ Moreover, carelessness is not

compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason

for granting of relief. Although the existence or degree of

prejudice to the party opposing the modification might

supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of he

inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking

modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry

should end.

Id. (citations omitted)

ANALYSIS

Based on a review of Plaintiff’s complaint and moving

papers, as well as Defendant’s opposition, the Court finds that

Plaintiff has not shown good cause to allow amendment of her

complaint. Although Plaintiff claims that she originally

intended to state a cause of action for wrongful termination in

violation of public policy, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s

second claim for relief states a cause of action for retaliation

under the Family Medical Leave Act. 

Case 2:03-cv-02048-MCE -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/22/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

First, Plaintiff’s second claim for relief incorporates

Plaintiff’s entire first claim for relief, which is a cause of

action for “Violation of the Family Medical Leave Act 29 U.S.C.

2601, et seq.” (Pl.’s Compl. at 2-3.) Second, the first

substantive paragraph of Plaintiff’s second claim states that

Plaintiff was at all times covered by the Family Medical Leave

Act. (Pl.’s Compl. at ¶ 20.) Third, despite Plaintiff’s

contention that the claim is for wrongful termination in

violation of public policy, the claim lacks any discussion of the

public policy allegedly violated. Finally, a plain reading of

claims three and four, which are based in common law, shows that

they are pled differently than Plaintiff’s second claim for

relief. Unlike the second claim for relief, the third and fourth

claims are pled according to the common law elements of each

cause of action. On the other hand, Plaintiff’s second claim

appears to be pled in a manner consistent with the first claim,

which arises under the Family Medical Leave Act.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to place

Defendant on notice of a claim for wrongful termination in

violation of public policy. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534

U.S. 506, 512 (2002). Any confusion in this case is the result

of Plaintiff’s careless pleading of her second claim for relief. 

Plaintiff’s “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of

diligence and offers no reason for granting of relief.” Johnson,

975 F.2d at 609. Therefore, having failed to demonstrate the

requisite diligence, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to

amend.

//

Case 2:03-cv-02048-MCE -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/22/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reason, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 21, 2005

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02048-MCE -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/22/05 Page 6 of 6