N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SANDI R USH, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. PIER 1 IM POR TS (U.S.) INC .; STARB UC K S C ORPOR ATION, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 11-57214 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-08952-GW -PLA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ge orge H. W

u, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 4, 2015 ** Pa sa de na C a lifornia 

# FIL ED FEB 06 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 1B e fore : REINHAR DT a nd GOULD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M OTZ, Se nior Distric t Judge . *** Sandi R ush a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to a ppe lle e s on he r c la im s unde r the Am e ric a ns with Disa

bilitie s Ac t (ADA). W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. “ ‘ The distric t c ourt is given broa d disc re tion in supervising thepre tria l pha s e of litiga t ion, a nd its de c isions re ga

rding the p re c lusive e ffe c t of a

pre tria l orde r . . . will not be disturbe d unle s s the y e vide nc e a c le ar a

buse of disc re tion.’ ” J

ohnson v . Mammoth Re c re ations, Inc . , 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th C ir. 1992) (quoting Mille r v . Safe c o Title Ins. C o. , 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th C ir.1985)). Simila rly , “ [t] he distric t c ourt’ s e xc lusion of e v ide nc e in a sum m ary judgm e nt m otion is re vie we d for an a buse of disc re tion.” O rr v . Bank of Am., N T & SA , 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th C ir. 2002). I. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing R u sh le av e to am e nd he r c om

pla int. Eve n if Oliv e r v . Ralphs Groc e ry C o. , 654 F.3d 903 (9th C ir. 2011), e ffe c te d a

c ha nge in the ple a ding sta

nda rd— a que stion wene e d not a

nd do not re a c h—R

ush fa ile d to de m o nstra

te “ good c a

use ” to a m e nd the c om

pla int a fte r the d e a dline for doing so under the distric t c ourt’ s sc h e duling orde r ha d pa s se d.

*** The Honora

ble J. Fre de ric k

M otz , Se nior Distric t

Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M ary l an d, sitting by de signa t ion. 2Se e J

ohnson, 975 F.2d a

t 608–09. Oliv e r issue d on August 17, 2011, y e t R ush wa ite d until Oc tobe r 3, 2011 to file he r m otion to a

m e nd the c om

pla i nt, whic h wa s a fte r the c lose of disc ove ry an d a fte r both de fe nda

nts ha d file d sum

m ary judgm e nt m otions. It wa s within the distric t c ourt’ s disc re tion to c o nc lude , a s it did, tha t the work involve d

in a m e nding thec om

pla int wa s m inim a l a

nd did not justify

suc h a le ngthy de l ay , a nd tha t the de fe nda

nts would be

pre judic e d if the c ourt va c ate d the ne ar-te rm tria l da t e and re ope ne d disc ove ry . Se e id. at 609; se e also Park e r v . J oe Lujan Ente rprise

s, Inc . , 848 F.2d 118, 121 (9th C ir. 1988). W e a lso re je c t R ush’ s c onte ntion tha

t she wa s e ntitle d to a

m e nd he r c om

pla int to c ure a jurisdic tiona l de fe c t pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1653. Although the distric t c ourt found oneof R ush’ s c l a i m s m oot, it rule d on them e rits of he r othe r c la im s and re ta ine d jurisdic tion ove r the c a se . Thus, the re wa s no jurisdic tiona l de fe c t to c ure via am e ndm e nt of the c om

pla i nt. II. R ush a lso a p pe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s re fusa l to c onside r he r e xpe rt re port pe rta ining to the a lle ge d ba rrie rs a t Sta rbuc ks. W e ne e d not de c ide whe the r the distric t c o urt e rre d in c onc luding tha t R ush ha d fa ile d

to a uthe ntic ate the re port, be c a use any suc h e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. C f . Las Ve gas Sands, LLC

v . N e hme , 632 F.3d 526, 533–34 (9th C ir. 2011) (holding distric t c ourt should ha

ve c onside re d 3possibility

of a uthe ntic ation unde r Fe d. R . Evid. 904(b)(4) a nd a p ply ing ha

rm le ss e rror ana ly sis). The e x c lude d e xpe rt re port did not raise a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t with re spe c t

to the ADA c l a im s tha

t we re prope rly

ra ise d be fore the distric t c ourt. AFFIRM E D.

4