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

 The motion was filed on behalf of defendants United States Seafoods, LLC, Ocean Alaska LLC

and Seafreeze Alaska LP.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CARRIE FRANCISCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES SEAFOOD, et al.,

Defendants.

 No. CV06-885RSL

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

AMEND ANSWER

This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ “Motion to Amend Answer” (Dkt.

#38) and “Motion for Continuance of the Pleading Amendment Cutoff Date.” (Dkt. #42).1

Defendants originally moved to amend their answer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)

to include an affirmative defense of “Release of Claims,” but appear to have realized after the

filing of plaintiff’s response that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) is the governing rule due

to the fact that the deadline for amending pleadings under the Court’s case scheduling order

expired on July 11, 2007. See Dkt. #11. Defendants then filed an additional motion seeking

relief from the Court’s deadline for amending pleadings. The Court rules on both motions

together in this Order. 

Plaintiff is indeed correct that once a court has entered a pretrial scheduling order

establishing a timetable for the amendment of pleadings, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b),

Case 2:06-cv-00885-RAJ Document 48 Filed 09/14/07 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 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER -2

not Rule 15(a), governs. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir.

1992). Under Rule 16(b), a plaintiff must show good cause for failing to amend the complaint

before the deadline specified in the scheduling order. Id. Unlike Rule 15(a)’s more liberal

standard that looks primarily to the bad faith of the moving party and the prejudice to the

opposing party, “[t]his standard ‘primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment.’” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). While prejudice to the party opposing the modification might

provide additional reasons for denying the motion, it is not required to deny a motion to amend

under Rule 16(b). Id. at 1295.

Defendants here concede that their failure to include the Release of Claims as an

affirmative defense in their answer was the result of an oversight on the part of counsel. The

question for the Court is whether defendants’ oversight negates a finding of diligence. Given

that defendants raised the issue promptly after being made aware of their omission, the Court

believes that allowing defendants to amend their answer is justified under Rule 16(b). That said,

the Court believes that plaintiff should not be prejudiced as a result of defendants’ failure to

amend in a more timely fashion. Therefore, in addition to granting defendants’ motion to extend

the deadline for amending pleadings, the Court will also extend other relevant deadlines and

issue a new case scheduling order to allow plaintiff sufficient time to conduct any necessary

additional discovery.

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions for an extension of the deadline to amend

their answer and for leave to amend their answer are GRANTED. A new case scheduling order

will be issued together with this Order. 

DATED this 14th day of September, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00885-RAJ Document 48 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 2