Summary
denying leave to amend when plaintiff's attorneys waited approximately three months to amend after plaintiff's deposition
Summary of this case from Cervantes v. ZimmermanOpinion
No. C 03-5516 PJH.
November 29, 2004
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND, EXTEND DISCOVERY, AND CONTINUE TRIAL
Before this court is plaintiff Bonneau's motion to amend the complaint, extend discovery, and continue the trial date in this matter. Having carefully read the parties' papers and considered the relevant legal authority, the court hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons that follow.
Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-13, this order may not be cited except as provided by Civ. L.R. 3-4(e).
The court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument as permitted by Civil L.R. 7-1(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 78. See also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that the court's consideration of the moving and opposition papers is deemed an adequate substitute for a formal hearing), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 920 (1992). The December 8, 2004 hearing is VACATED.
BACKGROUND
Bonneau, a software trainer, originally filed a complaint that his former employer, SAP America, discriminated against him in violation of FEHA based on his medical condition. Bonneau now seeks leave to file an amended complaint that adds proposed class action claims that SAP wrongly classified him and approximately 30 other trainers as exempt from overtime, and thus did not pay overtime or grant appropriate meal and rest break times. Bonneau also seeks leave to add claims that SAP violated § 17200.Bonneau's attorneys claim they were not aware of the overtime claims until they received and reviewed the transcript from Bonneau's deposition, a few weeks after July 31, 2004, where Bonneau first revealed that he had routinely worked until 9 p.m. most nights. SAP's attorneys claim instead that Bonneau stated at the mediation on August 30, 2004 that if the case did not settle, he would seek leave to add these claims.
The deadline to file a motion to amend the complaint in this matter was September 2, 2004. Bonneau filed this motion to amend the complaint on November 1, 2004.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
1. Motion to Amend
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) requires that a plaintiff obtain either consent or leave of court to amend its complaint once the defendant has answered, but "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." See, e.g., Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (leave to amend granted with "extreme liberality"). Leave to amend is thus ordinarily permitted unless the amendment is futile, untimely, would cause undue prejudice to the defendants, or is sought by plaintiffs in bad faith or with a dilatory motive. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
2. Rule 16(b)
However, if a party seeks leave to amend a pleading after the deadlines originally set in the case management schedule, Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) applies, not Rule 15(a). "Under Rule 16(b), [the moving party] must show good cause for not having amended their complaints before the time specified in the scheduling order expired. This standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). See also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992).
B. Undue Delay and Prejudice
Since the deadline for amending the complaint has passed, Bonneau must show good cause why leave to amend should be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b); Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1294. As an initial matter, Bonneau has not adequately explained his delay in filing the motion. Bonneau's attorneys' failure to conduct a sufficient investigation of the facts of his case to discover a potential overtime claim until a transcript of their client's deposition was received, almost a year after the case was filed, does not constitute good cause for the belated filing of the motion to amend. Bonneau and his attorneys had ample opportunity to discover the relevant facts concerning the potential overtime claim, especially since Bonneau himself had personal knowledge of that information. EPIS, Inc. v. Fidelity and Guaranty Life Ins. Co., 155 F.Supp. 2d 1116, 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (leave to amend under Rule 15 denied when plaintiff had "numerous opportunities to discover and plead the facts that underlie its current motion to amend" and provided no adequate explanation for delay).
Bonneau's claim that SAP deliberately delayed its response to his inquiries about stipulating to the amendments is rejected. Bonneau by his own admission only notified SAP about a possible stipulation on August 30, 2004, which was only two days before the September 1 deadline for filing a motion to amend. Bonneau was also free at any time to move the court for relief notwithstanding SAP's failure to respond to his inquiries.
In addition, SAP is correct that it will suffer severe prejudice should the motion to amend be granted. Discovery closes on December 1, 2004, summary judgment motions will be heard in January 2005, and the trial in this matter is scheduled for May 2005. Bonneau's proposed amendments vastly alter the scope of this litigation. If the motion to amend is granted, SAP will be forced to conduct significant additional discovery in response to Bonneau's class action claims and respond to additional legal motions, which will significantly delay progress in this case. These factors necessitate the denial of Bonneau's motion.Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1294-95 (denial of motion justified under Rule 16 given unexplained delay in moving to amend, coupled with need to reopen discovery). Cf., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 2001) ("a need to reopen discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a district court's finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to amend the complaint" even under Rule 15).
Bonneau's motion is DENIED. This order fully adjudicates the matter listed at no. 18 on the clerk's docket for this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.