Graciani v. Providence Health & Services et al
Filing
90
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO AMEND COMPLAINT: Ms. Gracianis Motion to Amend Complaint at Docket 61 is DENIED. Ms. Gracianis Motion to Permit Amendment of Complaint After Expiration of Deadline to Amend at Docket 78 is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall immed iately file an original, previously in-docketed version of the Amended Complaint & Demand for Jury Trial (Docket 78-1) for separate docketing. Defendants answer or other response to the amended complaint shall be filed within 14 days thereafter. (See Order for details). Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 07/19/2019. (CME, COURT STAFF)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DEBRA RENA GRACIANI,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROVIDENCE HEALTH &
SERVICES, KELLI RINAS,
JAMES EFIRD, BRENDA FRANZ,
and JAMES BLANKENSHIP,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG
Defendants.
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Before the Court at Docket 61 is Plaintiff Debra Rena Graciani’s Motion to
Amend Complaint. Defendants Providence Health & Services (“Providence”), Kelli
Rinas, James Efird, Brenda Franz, and James Blankenship’s (“individual
Defendants”; collectively, “Defendants”) filed a response in opposition at Docket
71. 1 Ms. Graciani filed a reply at Docket 77.
Also before the Court at Docket 78 is Ms. Graciani’s Motion to Permit
Amendment of Complaint After Expiration of Deadline to Amend. Defendants filed
a response in opposition at Docket 83. Ms. Graciani filed a reply at Docket 85.
1
The parties disagree as to the legal name of the institutional Defendant. Compare
Docket 83 at 2 n.2, with Docket 85 at 2 (citing Docket 85-1 (State Gov. Documents);
Docket 85-2 (Signed Employment Offer); Docket 85-3 (Employment Letter)). For the
purposes of this order, the Court will refer to the institutional Defendant as Providence
Health and Services, unless and until an order amending the case caption is issued.
Oral argument was not requested for either of these motions and was not
necessary to the Court’s determinations. However, on May 6, 2019, at an oral
argument on other motions then pending, the instant motion at Docket 61 was also
discussed. 2
BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2018, Ms. Graciani filed her Complaint in this Court, which
alleges six claims. 3 Providence is the only named defendant in Claims I–IV.
Claims I–III allege violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 4; Claim IV
alleges a deprivation of equal rights under Section 1981. 5 Claim V alleges a
conspiracy by the four individual Defendants to interfere with civil rights under
Section 1985(3). 6 Claim VI seeks punitive damages. 7
On August 1, 2018, the Court issued its scheduling and planning order,
which provided that motions to amend pleadings “shall be served and filed not later
2
Docket 74 (Minute Entry).
3
Docket 1.
4
Claim I alleges “disparate treatment in hiring and promotion, compensation and terms,
conditions and privileges of employment.” Docket 1 at 12, ¶¶ 69–70 (emphasis
omitted); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Claim II alleges “disparate treatment in
segregation.” Docket 1 at 13, ¶¶ 71–72 (emphasis omitted); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2).
Claim III alleges retaliation. Docket 1 at 13, ¶¶ 73–74; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).
5
Docket 1 at 13–14, ¶¶ 75–76; 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
6
Docket 1 at 14–15, ¶¶ 77–80; 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
7
Docket 1 at 15, ¶¶ 81–82.
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Order re Motions to Amend Complaint
Page 2 of 10
than 30 days after deadline for initial disclosures.” 8 The deadline for initial
disclosures was August 29, 2018. 9
Therefore, the deadline to amend was
September 28, 2018. No motion to amend the Complaint was filed by that date.
On October 9, 2018, Providence and the individual Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss Claim V of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 10 On October 29, 2018, Ms.
Graciani filed her opposition to that motion. 11 On November 13, 2018, Defendants
filed their reply. 12
On April 8, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Claim V
of Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. 13 The Court
held that Claim V is subject to a two-year statute of limitations and that Ms.
Graciani’s allegations as to Ms. Rinas and Mr. Efird fell outside that limitations
period. The Court further held that Ms. Graciani had failed to show that Ms. Franz
or Mr. Blankenship’s alleged actions met the elements of a Section 1985(3) claim.
As to Providence, the Court held that Ms. Graciani failed to state a Section 1985(3)
claim because she had pleaded that Providence was merely the principal for which
8
Docket 25 (Sched. and Planning Order) at 5 (emphasis in original).
9
Docket 34 (Text Order); Docket 31 (Mot. for Ext.).
10
Docket 42.
11
Docket 46.
12
Docket 47.
13
Docket 54 (Order re Mot. to Dismiss Claim V); Docket 42 (Mot. to Dismiss Claim V).
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Order re Motions to Amend Complaint
Page 3 of 10
the individual Defendants had acted as agents. Accordingly, the Court dismissed
Claim V against all Defendants without prejudice and with leave to amend. 14
On April 19, 2019, Ms. Graciani filed her first motion to amend pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). 15
The proposed amended complaint
attached to that motion sought to add numerous factual allegations, presumably in
an effort to address the deficiencies of Claim V.
But the proposed amended
complaint attached to that motion also sought to amend Claim IV, the Section 1981
claim, to add the individual Defendants and also sought to amend Claim III, a Title
VII claim. 16 At oral argument on May 6, 2019, 17 the Court expressed the view that
Ms. Graciani’s motion to amend was untimely insofar as it sought to amend Claims
III and IV, and amendment of those claims must be sought through Rule 16(b),
rather than pursuant to Rule 15(a).
Ms. Graciani did not withdraw her first motion to amend. Instead, on May
13, 2019, she filed a second motion, titled Motion to Permit Amendment of
Complaint after Expiration of Deadline to Amend pursuant to Rule 16(b). 18 She
attached the same proposed amended complaint that she had filed with the first
14
Docket 54 at 13–14, 19–21.
15
Docket 61.
16
Docket 61-1 (Prop. Am. Compl. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15).
17
Docket 74 (Minute Entry).
18
Docket 78.
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Order re Motions to Amend Complaint
Page 4 of 10
motion. 19 Ms. Graciani’s motion pursuant to Rule 16(b) asserts that her counsel
determined that Section 1981 had a four-year statute of limitations after conducting
additional legal research following the issuance of the Court’s order regarding
Claim V at Docket 54. 20 On May 15, 2019, Ms. Graciani filed a Notice of Filing
Related Case. 21
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(1) requires a district court to enter a
scheduling order governing the pretrial management of a case. After the order is
entered, Rule 16(b)(4) provides that “[the] schedule may be modified only for good
cause and with the judge’s consent.” “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment
policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an
19
Docket 78-1 (Prop. Am. Compl. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16).
20
Docket 78 at 4–6.
21
Docket 79 (Not. of Filing Related Case). The related Complaint brings only Section
1981 and punitive damages claims, but makes similar factual allegations to those
alleged in this case. Cf. Graciani v. Providence, et al., 3:19-cv-00137-SLG (Docket 1).
But see Diamond v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 15-7064 JAK (AJW), 2016 WL
3180226, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2016) (“A district court generally has the discretion ‘to
dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the
previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate
both actions.’”) (quoting Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th
Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008)),
report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 3176603 (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2016), aff’d,
700 F. App’x 727 (9th Cir. 2017).
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Order re Motions to Amend Complaint
Page 5 of 10
amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’
standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 22
DISCUSSION
I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend under Rule 15(a)
Ms. Graciani’s motion at Docket 61 seeks to amend the Complaint pursuant
to Rule 15(a). But the deadline for Ms. Graciani to amend under Rule 15(a) expired
on September 28, 2018. Ms. Graciani’s motion at Docket 61 was filed on April 19,
2019, more than six months later. Therefore, Ms. Graciani’s motion to amend at
Docket 61 will be denied.
II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Permit Amendment under Rule 16(b)
To the extent that Ms. Graciani seeks to amend her Complaint to provide
additional factual allegations as to her Section 1985(3) claim in accordance with
the parameters of the Court’s order at Docket 54, that proposed amendment was
expressly permitted by the Court’s order. But the proposed amendments of Claim
III and Claim IV were not permitted by the Court’s order at Docket 54; they are
untimely and will be considered in light of Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard.
Ms. Graciani recounts the briefing timeline as to Defendants’ motion to
dismiss Claim V, and she attempts to relitigate the merits of Claim V as originally
22
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Order re Motions to Amend Complaint
Page 6 of 10
pled. 23 Next, Ms. Graciani maintains that Section 1981 is subject to a four-year
statute of limitations, and that her proposed Section 1981 claim against the
individual Defendants falls within that statute of limitations. 24 Ms. Graciani further
maintains that Defendants would not be prejudiced by the addition of the individual
Defendants to her Section 1981 claim, 25 and that substantial time remains before
trial. 26 As to her diligence in seeking to amend, Ms. Graciani states in her reply
that “[f]ollowing the Court’s Order on the Motion to Dismiss dated April 8, 2019,
plaintiff was diligent in asserting an alternate theory for the individual [Defendants’]
liability on April 19, 2019.” 27
Defendants respond that Ms. Graciani “obviously was aware of the [Section
1981] cause of action as she asserted the same against Providence.
Her
proposed new claim against the Individual Defendants is not founded upon any
newly discovered – or even newly pled – factual allegations.” As such, Defendants
maintain, Ms. Graciani has failed to show good cause for her delay in seeking to
amend. 28
23
Docket 78 at 2–4.
24
Docket 78 at 5–6.
25
Docket 78 at 7.
26
Docket 85 at 4.
27
Docket 85 at 5.
28
Docket 83 at 5–6.
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Order re Motions to Amend Complaint
Page 7 of 10
a. Proposed Additional Factual Allegations Expressly Permitted by the Court’s
Order at Docket 54
The Court’s order at Docket 54 authorized Ms. Graciani to file an amended
complaint with additional factual allegations regarding conspiracy under Section
1985(3). Ms. Graciani’s motion at Docket 78 will be granted to the extent that her
proposed amended complaint was permitted by the order at Docket 54. However,
the Court expresses no opinion at this time as to the viability of Claim V as pled in
the proposed amended complaint.
b. Proposed Amendment of Claim III
Ms. Graciani’s proposed amended complaint includes one additional
paragraph in support of Claim III, a Title VII claim. This paragraph refers to “the
defendants,”
although
the
prior
paragraph
refers
to
“[t]he
defendant
Providence[.]” 29 From the briefing, it does not appear that Ms. Graciani is seeking
damages from the individual Defendants under Claim III. 30 The Court will grant
Ms. Graciani’s motion as to Claim III—specifically, paragraph 75 of the proposed
amended complaint—solely to the extent that she seeks to attribute to Providence
the acts of the individual Defendants.
29
Docket 78-1 (Prop. Am. Compl. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16) at 18–19, ¶¶ 74–75.
30
The Ninth Circuit has held that “individual defendants cannot be held liable for
damages under Title VII[.]” Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir.
1993).
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Order re Motions to Amend Complaint
Page 8 of 10
c. Proposed Amendment of Claim IV
As to Ms. Graciani’s proposed amendment of Claim IV, to add the individual
Defendants to the Section 1981 claim, her counsel was not the model of diligence
in seeking this amendment. 31
However, Section 1981 has a broad remedial
purpose, 32 and Ms. Graciani proposes to amend her claim within what she asserts
to be the applicable limitations period for such claims. 33 And, given that the close
of discovery has been extended, any prejudice has been mitigated. Based on the
foregoing, the Court will find that good cause exists to permit Ms. Graciani to
amend her Section 1981 claim so as to add the individual Defendants, and will
grant her motion as to that claim.
31
It was and is incumbent on Ms. Graciani’s counsel, not on the Court or on opposing
counsel, to identify the claims available to her. Cf. Estate of Blue v. Cty. of Los Angeles,
120 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “[w]hen a reasonable investigation [by
plaintiff’s counsel] would reveal that a claim is barred by res judicata or collateral
estoppel, . . . Rule 11 sanctions may be imposed within the district court’s discretion”).
32
See Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 276 n.23 (2003) (“[Section 1981] was ‘meant, by
its broad terms, to proscribe discrimination in the making or enforcement of contracts
against, or in favor of, any race.’”) (quoting McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427
U.S. 273, 295–296 (1976)); Flores v. City of Westminster, 873 F.3d 739, 753 n.6 (9th
Cir. 2017) (citing Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 711 (1989); Bell v.
Clackamas County, 341 F.3d 858, 867 (9th Cir. 2003); Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food
Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62, 75 (2d Cir. 2000)) (“Numerous cases, including our own,
have allowed individual liability under section 1981.”), cert. denied sub nom. Hall v.
Flores, 138 S. Ct. 1551 (2018).
33
See Docket 78 at 4–6 (citing Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369,
371–73, 383 (2004)).
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Order re Motions to Amend Complaint
Page 9 of 10
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
Ms. Graciani’s Motion to Amend Complaint at Docket 61 is DENIED.
Ms. Graciani’s Motion to Permit Amendment of Complaint After Expiration
of Deadline to Amend at Docket 78 is GRANTED. 34
Plaintiff shall immediately file an original, previously undocketed version of
the Amended Complaint & Demand for Jury Trial (Docket 78-1) for separate
docketing. 35 Defendants’ answer or other response to the amended complaint
shall be filed within 14 days thereafter. 36
DATED this 19th day of July, 2019, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
34
In granting leave to amend, the Court expresses no opinion as to the legal viability of
Claim V, or any of the other claims pled in the proposed amended complaint.
35
See Local Civil Rule 15.1(b) (D. Alaska 2018) (“Unless otherwise ordered, the moving
party must file a complete, clean copy of the amended pleading, including exhibits,
within 7 days of the order granting the motion.”).
36
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.
Order re Motions to Amend Complaint
Page 10 of 10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?