Young v. Arizona Summit Law School LLC et al
Filing
70
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 64 Motion to Amend Complaint. ORDERED affirming all deadlines contained in the Court's 44 Rule 16 Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 3/6/2019. (See Order for details.) (LFIG)
1
WO
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
Tristan Young,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
Arizona Summit Law School LLC, et al.,
13
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-16-03490-PHX-DJH
Defendants.
14
15
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
16
(Doc. 64). Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 67); Plaintiff did not file a Reply, and the
17
time to do so has expired. See LRCiv. 7.2(c).1 Additionally, before the Court is the parties’
18
Notice of Discovery Dispute (Doc 69).
19
I.
BACKGROUND
20
Plaintiff, a former Arizona Summit Law School student, initiated this action on
21
October 12, 2016. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s Complaint contained three counts: Count One
22
accused Defendants of failing to provide appropriate accommodations for her disabilities
23
while she was a student at Arizona Summit Law School, Count Two accused Defendants
24
of negligent misrepresentation, and Count Three accused Defendants of common law
25
fraud. (Id. ¶¶ 104-130). Plaintiff’s first counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel on
26
February 1, 2017 (Doc. 10), which the Court granted on March 1, 2017. (Doc. 18). On
27
1
28
Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is denied because the parties have had an opportunity
to adequately brief the issues and oral argument will not aid the Court’s resolution of the
motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); LRCiv. 7.2(f)
1
April 17, 2017, Plaintiff notified the Court that she retained new counsel, Mr. David
2
Rosenberg-Wohl and Mr. Patrick Cooper, who remain Plaintiff’s counsel to date.
3
(Doc. 28).
4
On May 31, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts Two and Three of
5
Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 34). The Court granted Defendants’ Motion; thus, the only
6
claim remaining is Count One. (Doc. 39). On July 23, 2018, the Court issued a Rule 16
7
Scheduling Order, which provided that “[t]he deadline for joining parties, amending
8
pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings is 60 days from the date of this Order.”
9
(Doc. 44). Sixty days later, on September 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed her First Amended
10
Complaint, without seeking leave to do so. (Doc. 50). Defendants moved to strike
11
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
12
Procedure (“Rule”) 15. The Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Strike. (Doc. 63). On
13
February 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File an Amended
14
Complaint. (Doc. 64). The parties have also filed a Notice of Discovery Dispute, in which
15
Plaintiff requests that all discovery deadlines be extended by one year. (Doc. 69).
16
Defendants argues that “[t]here are no extraordinary circumstances justifying Plaintiff’s
17
request for a year extension of discovery deadlines.” (Id. at 2).
18
II.
DISCUSSION
19
A.
20
In her Motion, Plaintiff provides that “[t]his is Plaintiff’s first motion to seek leave
21
to amend her complaint, and it comes shortly after she switched attorneys in this
22
matter . . . .” (Doc. 64 at 2). Moreover, Plaintiff provides that her proposed Amended
23
Complaint “reshapes the complaint somewhat (as is to be expected under new attorneys),
24
but it principally seeks to allow plaintiff to assert her claims on behalf of others similarly
25
situated as well as on behalf of herself.” (Id. at 2). Additionally, Plaintiff states that her
26
request for leave to amend “comes early in the case . . . .” (Id. at 5). Defendants argue that
27
the deadline for Plaintiff to amend her complaint passed on September 21, 2018, that
28
Plaintiff switched attorneys in April 2017, and that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
-2-
1
cause for the requested leave to amend. (Doc. 67).
2
Plaintiff erroneously argues that Rule 15’s liberal amendment procedure applies to
3
her Motion. Plaintiff requests leave to amend her Complaint well after the expiration of
4
the Rule 16 Scheduling Order deadline for doing so; thus, Plaintiff must “satisfy the more
5
stringent ‘good cause’ showing required under Rule 16.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v.
6
Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 952 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original); see also
7
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Unlike Rule
8
15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to
9
interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’
10
standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”). Rule
11
16(b)(4) expressly states that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with
12
the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The district court is given broad discretion
13
in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, and its decisions regarding the preclusive
14
effect of a pretrial order . . . will not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of
15
discretion.” C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th
16
Cir. 2011), cert. denied sub nom. C.F. v. Corbett, 565 U.S. 1200 (2012) (citations and
17
internal quotation marks omitted) (omission in original). Accordingly, the Court will first
18
evaluate Plaintiffs’ Motion under Rule 16, and then, if necessary, under Rule 15(a). See
19
Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1295 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding plaintiffs’
20
failure to show diligence should end the inquiry).
21
In the context of a request to modify a scheduling order, “good cause” means the
22
scheduling order’s deadlines cannot be met despite the party’s diligence. Johnson, 975
23
F.2d at 609 (citation omitted). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party
24
opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of
25
the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. “If the party
26
seeking the modification was not diligent, the inquiry should end and the motion to modify
27
should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087
28
(9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
-3-
1
Federal courts in Arizona and within the Ninth Circuit “have articulated and
2
undertaken [a] three-step inquiry in resolving the question of diligence in the context of
3
determining good cause under Rule 16[.]” Morgal v. Maricopa County Bd. of Sup’rs, 284
4
F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. Ariz. June 6, 2012) (quoting Grant v. United States, 2011 WL
5
5554878, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011), adopted by, 2012 WL 218959, at * 1 (E.D. Cal.
6
Jan. 23, 2012)). Under this three-step inquiry:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[T]o demonstrate diligence under Rule 16’s “good cause” standard, the
movant may be required to show the following: (1) that [she] was diligent in
assisting the [c]ourt in creating a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [her]
noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur,
notwithstanding [her] diligent efforts to comply, because of the development
of matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at
the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference; and (3) that [she] was diligent
in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that
[she] could not comply with the order.
Morgal, 284 F.R.D. at 460 (quoting Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D.
Cal.1999)) (other citations omitted).
Plaintiff argues that the Court should grant leave to Amend her Complaint because
there is no prejudice to the Defendants and that she “tried to amend her complaint diligently
following the Court’s order on Defendant’s motion to dismiss dated 6/12/18[.]” (Doc. 64
at 4). Plaintiff’s argument misses the point. First, as discussed above, the focus of the
Rule 16(b) inquiry is not on the prejudicial effects on the responding party, rather it is on
the movant’s diligence in seeking leave to amend. Here, the Court finds that this second
attempt to amend her complaint does not come “shortly” after Plaintiff switched attorneys
in this matter. In fact, Plaintiff’s first attempt to file an amended complaint on September
21, 2018—which was filed approximately seventeen months after Plaintiff notified the
Court on April 17, 2017, that she had retained her current counsel—could not be accurately
described as filed “shortly” after Plaintiff retained new counsel. Thus, the instant Motion,
which was filed fifteen days after the Court issued its Order striking Plaintiff’s improper
amended complaint, was also not made “shortly” after Plaintiff’s counsel began
representing her in this matter. Moreover, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence of her
-4-
1
diligence in attempting to amend her Complaint.
2
Additionally, Plaintiff claims that “[s]ubstitution of counsel is reason enough to
3
permit an amendment to allow plaintiff the advocacy she has chosen, even where the
4
amendment introduces class claims.” (Doc. 64 at 4). Plaintiff supports this proposition by
5
citing out of circuit, Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 796 (7th Cir. 2008), in which the
6
court, applying the liberal requirements of Rule 15, held that it was not an abuse of
7
discretion for the court to grant a motion to amend a complaint to add class allegations
8
when the plaintiff’s first counsel “dropped the ball . . . .” However, the facts of this case
9
are easily distinguishable from Arreola. In Arreola, shortly after Plaintiff’s first counsel
10
withdrew, plaintiff obtained new counsel on March 29, 2005.
11
approximately eight months thereafter, plaintiff’s new counsel filed a motion for leave to
12
file a second amended complaint, which the court granted, finding that it was
13
understandable that plaintiff’s new counsel would need some time “to get up to speed”. Id.
14
Here, Plaintiff’s current counsel waited approximately seventeen months before
15
improperly filing her first amended complaint and Plaintiff does not argue that it took
16
seventeen months “to get up to speed” in this case. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff’s citation
17
to Arreola unpersuasive.
Id. at 793.
Within
18
Plaintiff also cites to a District of Arizona case in which the court there granted
19
leave to amend a complaint. See Order at 1-2, E.E.O.C. v. Collegeville/Imagineering Ent.,
20
2:05-cv-03033-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. July 13, 2006), ECF No. 34. There, the court stated
21
“that Plaintiff’s motion to amend is timely under the Court’s Case Management Order
22
(Doc. #20) and leave to amend is to be liberally granted.” Id. That case is inapposite to
23
the facts here. In this case, Plaintiff’ request was not timely under the Scheduling Order;
24
therefore, the leave to amend is not liberally granted. Thus, the Court also finds Plaintiff’s
25
citation to Collegeville/Imagineering Ent. unpersuasive.
26
Plaintiff has not provided any evidence of her diligence in attempting to amend her
27
Complaint. Despite Plaintiff’s claims that this request “comes early in the case” and
28
“shortly after she switched attorneys in this matter[;]” the record does not so reflect. The
-5-
1
Court finds Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing good cause under Rule 16 and the
2
inquiry will end here. See Morgal, 284 F.R.D. at 463.
3
B.
4
The parties filed a notice of Discovery Dispute on March 5, 2019, in which Plaintiff
5
requests that all discovery deadlines of the Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling Order should be
6
extended by one year. (Doc. 69). Defendant opposes this request. (Id.) The Court has
7
denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint; thus, the Court finds
8
there is not good cause to extend the discovery deadlines.
9
10
11
12
13
14
Parties’ Notice of Discovery Dispute
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
(Doc. 64) is DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming all deadlines contained in the Court’s
Rule 16 Scheduling Order (Doc. 44).
Dated this 6th day of March, 2019.
15
16
17
18
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
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?