NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK ADAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. METROPOLITAN EDUCATION DISTRICT FOUNDATION, a C alifornia Corporation; ALYSSA LYNCH; METROPOLITAN EDUCATION DISTRICT; SHARON BROWN; MARIANNE CARTAN,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 19-15678 DC No. 5:17 cv-5083-BLF
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 3, 2020 ** Seattle, Washington Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Dissent by Judge TASHIMA 

# FILED
OCT 1 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

* * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).Pla intiff M a rk Ada m s a ppe a ls from

the judgm e nt e nte re d in fa vor of De fe nda nts, M e t ropolita n Educ a tion Distric t

Founda tion a nd va rious othe rs, a fte r the d istric t c o urt de n ie d his m otion for le a ve to a m e nd a nd te rm inate d the c a se . W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e c onc lude tha t the distric t
c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion a

nd the re fore a ffirm
. S

e e Branc h Bank

ing & Tr. C o. v . D.M.S.I., LLC , 871 F.3d 751, 760 (9th C ir. 2017) (“ De n ia l of a m o tion to
a m e nd ple a dings is re vie we d for a n a buse of disc re t ion.” ). Pla intiff’ s origina l c om

pla int wa s file d in July

2017, a nd his first a

m e nde d
c om pla i nt (FAC ) in De c e m

be r 2017. He a l le ge d one c a use of a c tion unde r the La bor M a na ge m e nt R e l a tions Ac t (LM R A) a nd re la te d sta

te la w c la im s. The distric t c o urt’ s sc he duling orde r provide d tha t the la st da

y to a m e nd ple a dings wa s M a y 14, 2018. Although Pla

intiff ha d a ffirm a tive ly

sta te d in M a rc h tha

t he inte nde d to a

m e nd his c om

pla int, Pla intiff did not file a m otion to a

m e nd or a propose d se c o n d am e nde d c om

pla int (SAC ) within the de a dline
. On July 14, 2018, De fe nda

nts file d a m otion to dism

iss the FAC . Pla intiff
a ga in a sse rte d tha

t he wa s going to file

a propose d SAC , but he did not do so. On Ja nua ry 16, 2019, the

distric t c ourt gra

nte d De fe nda

nts’ m otion to dism iss with pre

j u dic e Pla intiff’ s LM R

A c la im a nd dism isse d the re la te d sta te la w
c la im s without pre

judic e to Pla intiff bringing the m in sta t e c ourt. The distric t c ourt
2note d tha

t, a lthough Pla intiff c la im e d tha t he should ha

ve a n opportunity

to a m e nd the c om pla i nt, he ha d “ not m o ve d to a m e nd his c om

pla int” a n d tha

t the c ourt

“ c a nnot gra nt a re que st not prope rly

be fore it.” M ore ove r, the c ourt e xpla ine d tha t

“ Pla intiff ha s not de m onstra te d tha t good c a use e xists to a llow a

m e ndm e nt a fte r th[e ] [M a y

2018] de a dline , a s is re quire d by Fe d e ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 16(b)(4)” whe n a

pa rty se e ks le a ve to a

m e n d a fte r the de a dline in the sc h e duling orde r. Se e Fe d . R . C iv. P. 16(b)(4) (“ A sc he d ule m a y be m odifie d only

for good
c a use a nd with thejudge ’ s c onse nt.” ). In pa rtic ula r, the c ourt obse rve d tha

t Pla i ntiff ha d not e x pla i ne d why he did not file

a propose d SAC by the origina l de a dline , m

uc h le ss why

he did not do so in c onne c tion with his opposition to the
m otion to dism

iss or be fore the c ourt “ spe n t tim e re solving th[a t] m otion.” None t he le ss, the c ourt de c ide d to a l low Pla intiff fourte e n da y s to file a

“ m o tion for le a ve ” to a

m e nd with a

propose d SAC , re quiring the m otion to be file d on or be fore Ja nua ry 30, 2019. Pla intiff file d his m o tion for le a ve to a m e nd a nd his propose d SAC on Ja nua ry 30, 2019. The

distric t c ourt de n ie d the m o tion. The c ourt sta te d tha t Pla i ntiff fa ile d to offe r a n y justific a tion for the de la

y , a dding tha

t the “ orde r gra n ting him

14 da y s to file a

m otion for le a ve to a

m e nd wa s a

c o urte sy to a llow him to de m onstra

te good c ause unde r R

u le 16 why

the C ourt should a

m e nd the
3sc he duling orde r. He doe s not e ve n a t te m pt to sa t isfy this re quire m e nt.” The c ourt thus found tha

t Pla intiff wa s not dilige nt in se e k ing le a ve to a m e nd a n d ha d not de m onstra

te d why he c ould not ha

ve brought the c la im s e a rlie r, c onc luding tha t “ it
a ppe a rs Pla intiff wa s sim

ply c a re le ss.” The distric t c ourt e nte re d judgm e nt in fa vor of De fe nda

nts. Pla intiff tim e ly

a ppe a le d. As shown by

our re c i ta tion of the ba c kground of this c a s e , the distric t c ourt be nt ove r ba c kwa

rds to a c c o m

m oda te Pla intiff’ s le ngthy de la y in m oving to a

m e nd
a nd filing his propose d SAC . In its Ja nua ry 2019 orde r, the distric t c ourt ga ve Pla i ntiff one m ore c ha

nc e , a llowing him

to file a m otion for le a ve to a

m e nd. Pla i ntiff c onte n ds (a

nd the disse nt a g re e s) tha t this a l lowa

nc e e ffe c tive ly

e xte nde d the d e a dline in the sc he duling orde r a nd e lim inate d the ne e d to show good c a use for fa iling to c om

ply with tha t sc he dule
. W e disa gre e . The distric t c ourt a l lowe d Pla i ntiff to file a

form a l m otion for le a ve to a m e nd only

a fte r spe c ific a lly
c ha stising him

for his fa ilure to ha

ve file d suc h a

m otion a nd his c onc om ita

nt fa ilure to show good c a

use a s re quire d unde r R

u l e 16(b)(4). The orde r thus sim ply
a llowe d him

to m a ke the showing of good c a use tha t he ha d so fa

r fa i le d to m a ke
. As the c ourt la

t e r c onc lude d, howe ve r, Pla intiff’ s subse que nt m otion did not
e ve n a t te m

p t to e sta blish good c a

use to a m e nd the sc he duling orde r, a s re quire d by R ule 16. Se e DRK

Photo v

. Mc Graw -Hill Glob. Educ . Holdings, LLC , 870 F.3d
4978, 989 (9th C ir. 2017) (whe n “ a pa rty se e ks le a ve to a

m e nd a fte r the de a dline se t in the sc he duling orde r ha s pa sse d, the pa rty ’ s re que st is judge d unde r [R ule ] 16’ s

‘ g ood c a u se ’ sta nda rd ra t h e r tha n the ‘ libe ra l a m e n dm e nt polic y ’ of [R ule ] 15(a )” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Pla i ntiff’ s m otion for le a ve to a m e nd. The judgm e nt is AFFIRM E D.

5A dams v. M

etr o. E duc. Dis t. F

ound. , No. 19- 15678 T A S H I M A , Ci r cu i t J u dg e, di ss en ti n g : Wh eth er P l ai n

ti f f en g ag ed i n i n or di n ate del ay i n m ov i n g to am en d i s n ot th e i s s u e. T h e di s tr i ct cou

r t g r an t ed P l ai n ti f f an addi ti on al two weeks to f i l e h i s
m oti on f or l eav e to am en d. T h at or der ef f ecti v el y am en ded th e deadl i n e i n th e
s ch edu l i n g or der or , at th e l eas t, was r eas on abl y con s tr u ed as a wai v er . T h e cou r t’ s J an u ar y 16, 2019, or der s tated th at, des p i te t h e f act th at P l ai n

t i f f h ad n ot d emon s tr ated g ood cau s e pu r s u an t to F eder al Ru l e of

Ci v i l P r ocedu

r e 16( b ) ( 4) , th e cou

r t deci ded to g i v e P l ai n

ti f f f ou r teen m or e day s to m

ov e f or l eav e to am en d
. T h at or der con

t ai n ed n o r equ i r em en

t t h at P l ai n ti f f addr es s g ood cau s e wh en h e f i l ed h i s m oti on to am en d. I n s tead, th e cou r t s peci f i cal l y f ou n d th at h e h ad n ot sh own g o od cau s e an d y et, “ g i v en t h at P l ai n ti f f r ai s ed th e des i r e to am

en d i n h i s oppos i ti on i n A

u g u s t 2018, ” th e cou

r t deci d ed to “ del ay i s su i n g ju dg m en t
an d di s m i s s i n g th i s acti on

i n i ts en ti r ety ” i n or der to al l ow P l ai n ti f f to f i l e h i s
m oti on to am en d. T h

u s, th e cou

r t ex pl i ci tl y g av e P l ai n

ti f f per m i s s i on to f i l e h i s
m oti on by J an u ar y 30, 2019, ev en th ou g h P l ai n ti f f h ad f ai l ed t o dem

on s tr ate g ood
cau s e u n der Ru l e 16( b ) ( 4)
. T h e m o s t r eas on abl e con s tr

u cti on of t

h i s or d er i s as an
am en dm en t or wai v er of th e deadl i n e i n th e s ch edu l i n g or der , w i th ou

t t h e
con com i tan t r equ i r em en

t to s h ow g ood cau s e. I wou l d th er ef or e con cl u de th at th e di s tr i ct cou

r t abu s ed i ts di s cr eti on i n den y i n g P l ai n

ti f f ’ s m oti o n an d f

ai l i n g to 

# FI L E D
OCT 1 2020 M O LLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. COURT OF APPEAL Sg r an

t l eav e to am en d. M or eov er , we h av e h el d th at “ [ u ] n du e del ay by i ts el f i s i n su f f i ci en t to ju s ti f y den y i n g l eav e to am en d

. . . . ” United States v. United Healthcar e I ns . Co. , 848 F
. 3d 1161, 1184 ( 9th

Ci r . 2016)
. Yet, i n con cl u di n g th at n o g o od cau s e was
s h own , th e di s t

r i ct cou r t com pl etel y f ai l ed to con s i d er th e F

oman f actor s. S ee F oman v. Davis , 371 U. S
. 178, 182 ( 1 962) ( i n deci d i n g wh eth er to gr an t l eav e to
am en d, di s tr i ct cou

r t sh ou l d con s i der f

actor s s u ch as “ u

n du e del ay , b ad f

ai th or di l ator y m oti v e on th e par

t o f th e m ov an t, r epeated f

ai l u r e to cu r e def i ci en ci es by
am en dm en ts pr ev i o u s l y al l owed, u

n du e pr eju di ce to th e oppos i n g par ty by v i r

tu e of al l owan ce of t

h e am en dm

en t, [ an d] f u ti l i ty of am en dm

en t ”)
. I th er ef or e r es pectf

u l l y di s s en

t.

2