Donges et al v. USAA Federal Savings Bank
Filing
82
ORDER DENYING Plaintiffs' 78 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 4/10/19. (BAC)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
William R Donges, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-18-00093-TUC-RM
USAA Federal Savings Bank,
13
Defendant.
14
15
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs William and Carolyn Donges’ Motion to
16
Amend Complaint. (Doc. 78.)1 For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ request for leave to
17
amend will be denied.
18
I.
Background
19
On April 23, 2018, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting a deadline of May
20
18, 2018, to amend pleadings. (Doc. 32 at 1.) On May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs requested and
21
were granted leave to file the operative First Amended Complaint. (Docs. 33, 34, 35.)
22
On August 2, 2018, the parties jointly requested an extension of the deadline to
23
complete discovery, which the Court granted. (Docs. 39, 40.) The parties did not request
24
an extension of the already-expired amendment deadline. (See Doc. 39.)
25
Briefing on the parties’ summary judgment motions was completed on January 25,
26
2019. (Docs. 76, 77.) Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Amend Complaint on February 5,
27
28
1
Also pending are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and
Defendant USAA Federal Savings Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment, both of which
are fully briefed. (Docs. 54, 64, 69, 71, 76, 77.) The summary judgment motions will be
resolved in a separate order.
1
2019. (Doc. 78.) They seek to add two new claims. (See id.)
2
II.
Standard of Review
3
Plaintiffs’ motion was filed more than eight months after the May 18, 2018
4
amendment deadline. Accordingly, their motion is properly examined first under Federal
5
Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) as a motion to amend the Scheduling Order. Coleman v.
6
Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth
7
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–09 (9th Cir. 1992)). Rule 16(b)(4) provides that a
8
scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”
9
“This standard ‘primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’”
10
Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1294 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). If the moving party “was
11
not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; see Wong v. Regents of
12
Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Parties must understand that they will
13
pay a price for failure to comply strictly with scheduling and other orders . . . .”).
14
If the party seeking to amend shows good cause under Rule 16(b)(4), he or she must
15
then show that the amendment would be proper under the liberal requirements of Rule
16
15(a). Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608 (citing Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C.
17
1987)). The district court has discretion in determining whether to grant or deny leave to
18
amend, Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), but leave should freely be given “when
19
justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In determining whether to grant leave to
20
amend under Rule 15(a), the Court considers whether there has been “‘undue delay, bad
21
faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
22
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
23
allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.’” Eminence Capital, LLC v.
24
Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S.
25
at 182).
26
III.
27
Discussion
Plaintiffs have not shown good cause under Rule 16(b)(4) for allowing their
28
-2-
1
untimely motion.2 Two circumstances show that they were not diligent. First, they
2
concede that they have been in possession of the evidence on which the proposed
3
amendment is based at least since the end of discovery, on September 21, 2019.3 Thus, all
4
the facts necessary for Plaintiffs to bring their proposed claims were in their possession
5
months before they made their request (and probably before they filed this lawsuit).
6
Second, Plaintiffs claim they only became aware of the legal significance of such evidence
7
while preparing their response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The
8
response was filed on January 10, 2019. Even assuming it was reasonable for Plaintiffs to
9
identify their proposed claims so long after discovery, they still waited approximately one
10
month to file their motion.
11
Because Plaintiffs were not diligent, they cannot show good cause under Rule
12
16(b)(4). Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The Court therefore declines to amend the Scheduling
13
Order and will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint as untimely.
14
Furthermore, the Court finds that the Foman factors weigh against granting
15
Plaintiffs leave to amend. The parties’ summary judgment motions are fully briefed. If
16
Plaintiffs were granted leave to add new claims, Defendant would be entitled to time to file
17
an answer, to conduct discovery, and to file another summary judgment motion on those
18
claims. Thus, the amendment would clearly result in undue delay. Furthermore, the
19
necessity of reopening discovery on Plaintiff’s new claims would prejudice Defendant.4
20
See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (“A
21
need to reopen discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a district court’s
22
finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to amend the complaint.” (citing Solomon v. N.
23
Am. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 151 F.3d 1132, 1139 (9th Cir. 1998))).
24
25
26
27
28
2
3
Neither party addresses Rule 16(b)(4)’s good-cause requirement.
As Defendant points out, Plaintiffs probably had the evidence in their
possession in October 2017.
4
Plaintiffs assert that additional discovery is unnecessary because they have
all the facts they need to prevail on their proposed additional claims. Defendant asserts
that it would likely need to depose both Plaintiffs again. It is not unreasonable to believe
that Defendant may have additional, material questions relevant to Plaintiffs’ proposed
claims that went unasked because they appeared irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ operative pleading.
The Court thus finds that additional discovery would be required if Plaintiffs were granted
leave to amend.
-3-
1
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint also fails under Rule 15.
2
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 78) is denied.
3
Dated this 10th day of April, 2019.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
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?