Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02144/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02144-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Refiner Products Manufacturing, Inc.
Defendant
SierraPine
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

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. Local Rule 230(g).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIERRAPINE, a California

Limited Partnership

NO. 2:08-cv-02144 MCE DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

REFINER PRODUCTS

MANUFACTURING, INC., a North

Carolina Corporation, and DOES

1-10, INCLUSIVE,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Sierrapine (“Plaintiff”) moves for Leave to File a

Second Amended Complaint. For the reasons set forth below,

Plaintiff’s motion will be granted .

1

///

///

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 01/19/10 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

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

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

2

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced the instant civil action on August 4,

2008. This Court issued its initial Pretrial Scheduling Order

(“PTSO”) on January 13, 2009. Pursuant to the terms of the

order, the Court noted that “no joinder of parties or amendments

to pleadings is permitted without leave of the court, good cause

having been shown.” The PTSO further provided a deadline for

completion of non-expert discovery. The initial discovery cutoff date, October 23, 2009, was subsequently extended to

December 23, 2009. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on

October 16, 2009. 

Plaintiff now seeks permission to amend its complaint to add

three new causes of action related to newly discovered

information. 

STANDARD

Once a district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which 2

establishes a timetable to amend pleadings, that Rule’s standards

control. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, Plaintiff’s ability to amend its

complaint is governed by Rule 16(b), not Rule 15(a), as contended

by Plaintiff. See Id. at 608.

///

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 01/19/10 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

3

In addition, 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).

“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:

[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 the 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

To demonstrate diligence under Rule 16's “good cause”

standard, courts have required movants to show the following:

(1) that they were diligent in assisting the Court in creating

a workable Rule 16 order, see In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel

Fire Litig., 111 F.3d 220, 228 (1st Cir. 1997); (2) that,

despite their diligent efforts to comply, their noncompliance

with a Rule 16 deadline occurred because of the development of

matters that could not have been reasonably foreseen or

anticipated, see Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; and 

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 01/19/10 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

(3) that they were diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16

order, once it became apparent that they could not comply with

the order, see Eckert Cold Storage, Inc. v. Behl, 943 F. Supp.

1230, 1233 (E.D. Cal. 1996). Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186

F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999).

Plaintiff satisfies this “good cause” standard because

Plaintiff was diligent in assisting the Court, noncompliance

occurred due to developments that could not have been reasonably

foreseen, and Plaintiff was diligent in seeking amendment of the

Rule 16 order. 

First, Plaintiff was diligent in assisting the Court. “As

Rule 16 recognizes, scheduling orders are at the heart of case

management” Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3d Cir.

1986) and “good faith compliance with Rule 16 plays an important

role in this process.” Veranda Beach Club Ltd. Partnership v.

Western Sur. Co., 936 F.2d 1364, 1371 (1st Cir. 1991). 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed three months ago,

on October 16, 2009. The motion to amend followed only a month

later. Between the time of filing the First Amended Complaint

and the present motion, Plaintiff made reasonable efforts in

responding to Defendant’s inquiries in a timely manner and as a

result, discovered new information leading to this motion. 

Plaintiff immediately made the court aware of the new information

and as such was diligent in performing those acts required by the

Court. 

///

///

///

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 01/19/10 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

Second, Plaintiff’s present motion is the result of matters

that could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated. In

calculating damages for this suit, Plaintiff states that it

relied on an employee’s knowledge and provided Defendant with the

calculations in July 2009. In October 2009, Defendant served

Plaintiff with discovery requests that specifically asked

Plaintiff to identify the reason for the down time calculations. 

Plaintiff asserts that it diligently attempted to contact the now

former employee but its efforts were thwarted when the employee

refused to assist in the lawsuit. Immediately following,

Plaintiff requested that another employee attempt these

calculations. During this time, the employee discovered the new

information that Plaintiff now seeks to add to the complaint. 

With these facts in mind, it seems clear that the Plaintiff acted

in good faith in responding to inquiries and abiding by

deadlines. The issue of whether the defective plug screws and

throats supplied by RPM caused SierraPine a significant amount of

down time could not have reasonably been foreseen by the

Plaintiff under the circumstances. 

Lastly, Plaintiff acted diligently in seeking to amend the

Rule 16 order. Upon discovery of the new information on or

around October 2009, Plaintiff wished to amend the complaint. 

Plaintiff alerted opposing counsel on November 6, 2009 that new

information had come to light and requested that the opposing

counsel stipulate to an amendment to the complaint. When

Defendant denied the request, Plaintiff states that she promptly

began drafting this motion. Plaintiff subsequently filed the

motion with the court on November 16, 2009. 

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 01/19/10 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

Therefore, the time between the discovery of the new information

and the time of filing this motion was around one month. 

Defendant asserts that prejudice would result should the

motion be granted. However, as stated supra, “as the existence

or degree of prejudice to party opposing modification might

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

inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking

modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Further, the new claim

should present a minimal degree of surprise to Defendant since

the Defendant supplied this product to Plaintiff and Defendant

was notified that a civil suit was underway between the parties

regarding their dealings. In addition, the Defendant can cure

this prejudice with additional deposition(s) if necessary. 

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 01/19/10 Page 6 of 6