Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to add an ADA claim, which was filed approximately 15 months after the scheduling order deadline. The court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate 'good cause' because he knew the underlying facts well before the deadline and his delay was due to carelessness or legal research rather than diligence.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for leave to file a second amended complaint denied“Plaintiff failed meet his burden. The Court therefore DENIES his motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) for modifying a scheduling order. The Ninth Circuit precedent cited (Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations) establishes that good cause requires a showing that the schedule could not have been met despite diligence. The court found that the plaintiff knew the facts supporting the ADA claim (the police incident and his disability) long before the deadline, and that ignorance of the law or carelessness does not constitute good cause. This application of the law to the recited facts is legally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sufficient. It correctly identifies the applicable standard (Rule 16 good cause), cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, and applies the facts (plaintiff's knowledge of the underlying incident and disability prior to the deadline) to conclude that diligence was lacking. The reasoning directly addresses the motion and relies on appropriate authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CENTENO, Case No.: 3:19-cv-2098-L-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al. [ECF 139] 15 Defendants. 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended 17 complaint. Defendants opposed, and Plaintiff replied. The Court decides the matter 18 without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7.1. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES 19 the motion. 20 The Court set March 30, 2020, as the deadline to file motions to amend. (ECF 33). 21 Plaintiff filed the current motion on June 18, 2021, almost 15 months after the deadline. 22 (ECF 139). He must therefore show “good cause” to amend the scheduling order. See 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16; Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). 24 “Good cause” exists if a party can demonstrate the schedule could not have been 25 met despite their diligence. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. A court must consider “whether the 26 moving party knew or should have known the facts and theories raised by the amendment 27 in the original pleading.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 28 1 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). ““Carelessness is not compatible with a 2 || finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 3 Plaintiff seeks leave to add an Americans with Disabilities Act claim against 4 || Defendants. (ECF 139). The proposed claim relates to the same April 27, 2019, police 5 incident at issue in this excessive force lawsuit. Jd. There is no doubt Plaintiff knew about 6 || the facts that support the ADA claim (e.g., the officers’ conduct during the arrest and his 7 || disability) long before the deadline in the scheduling order. And ignorance about the law, 8 || carelessness, or inaction does not show “good cause.”! Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 9 Plaintiff failed meet his burden. The Court therefore DENIES his motion. See 10 || Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (“if the party 11 seeking the modification was not diligent, the inquiry should end and the motion to 12 modify should not be granted.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: September 15, 2021 fee Soop 16 H . James Lorenz, 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' Plaintiff relies on his counsel’s recent research on Ninth Circuit law that supports an ADA claim in the arrest context. 45