Anthony Yuzwa v. M V Oosterdam et al
Filing
56
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File the proposed Second Amended Complaint 51 . The Clerk shall file the proposed SAC forthwith. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-2663-CAS (AJWx)
Title
ANTHONY YUZWA V. M V OOSTERDAM, ET AL.
Present: The Honorable
Date
June 25, 2013
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder
N/A
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants
Not present
Not present
Proceedings:
I.
(In Chambers:) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (filed May 31,
2013) [51]
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of July 1, 2013, is vacated,
and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
On March 28, 2012, plaintiff Anthony Yuzwa filed a “Seaman’s Complaint for
Personal Injuries” (“Complaint”) against M/V Oosterdam, IMO Number 922/281, her
engines, tackle, apparel, furniture, and appurtenances, in rem (“vessel”); HAL Maritime,
Ltd. (“HAL”), erroneously named as Holland America Line, Inc.; Stiletto Entertainment
and Stiletto Television, Inc.; and Does 1–10. Dkt. No. 1.
Plaintiff, a Canadian citizen, was hired to work as a performer aboard the M/V
Oosterdam cruise ship. Once plaintiff was hired to work on the vessel, he signed a
Seagoing Employment Agreement with HAL. HAL has stipulated to being the owner
and operator of the vessel and plaintiff’s Jones Act employer at the time of the incident.
Dkt. No. 29. While on board the vessel rehearsing for a performance, plaintiff alleges
that he was severely injured when a stage lift/riser crushed his right foot and toes.
Plaintiff further alleges that Stiletto was responsible for choreographing, directing, and
managing these rehearsals.
On December 17, 2012, the Court granted defendant HAL’s motion to compel
arbitration and stayed the case as to HAL.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-2663-CAS (AJWx)
Date
June 25, 2013
Title
ANTHONY YUZWA V. M V OOSTERDAM, ET AL.
The Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the operative First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) on May 20, 2013.1 The FAC asserts claims for: (1) Jones Act
negligence; (2) unseaworthiness; (3) maintenance and cure; (4) negligence under general
maritime law; (5) breach of warranty of workmanlike service; (6) strict products liability;
and (7) breach of warranty. Plaintiff’s FAC also drops Stiletto Television as a defendant
and substitutes Hastings/Clayton/Tucker, Inc. d/b/a Stiletto Entertainment (“Stiletto) in
place of Stiletto Entertainment.
Plaintiff now moves for leave to file his proposed Second Amended Complaint
(“SAC”). Dkt. No. 51. Defendant opposed the motion on June 10, 2013, and plaintiff
replied on June 17. After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and
concludes as follows.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
As a preliminary matter, the Court must decide whether Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a) or 16(b) applies. Generally, a court grants a motion for leave to amend
pleadings pursuant to the permissive standard of Rule 15(a). Martinez v. Newport Beach
City, 125 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 1997). However, once the district court enters a
scheduling order establishing a deadline for amending pleadings, Rule 16(b) applies.
Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). This is because once
the scheduling order is in place, the court must modify the scheduling order to permit an
amendment. W. Schwarzer, A. Tashima & M. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before
Trial (2006) § 8:405.1 (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 609).
Here, the Court has already set a deadline of February 28, 2013, for adding parties
and amending pleadings. Therefore, plaintiff must demonstrate “good cause” for
bringing this motion under Rule 16, then if “good cause” is shown, plaintiff must
demonstrate that amendment is proper under Rule 15(a).
1
The Court denied plaintiff’s ex parte application to “amend” his motion to file a
different first amended complaint, stating that “[i]f plaintiff seeks to file an amended
complaint different in substance than the proposed First Amended Complaint lodged with
his motion, plaintiff may notice a new motion under the standards set forth in Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16.” Dkt. No. 47. The instant motion followed.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-2663-CAS (AJWx)
Title
ANTHONY YUZWA V. M V OOSTERDAM, ET AL.
A.
Date
June 25, 2013
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16
Rule 16(b)(4) provides that a scheduling order shall be modified “only for good
cause.” “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of
the party seeking to interpose an 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.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Accordingly, while the court may consider
the “existence or degree of prejudice” to the opposing party, the focus of the court’s
inquiry is upon the moving party’s explanation for failure to timely move for leave to
amend. Id. “The pretrial schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met
despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,
302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).
B.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15
Rule 15 provides that after a responsive pleading has been filed, “a party may
amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.
The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
Where leave to amend is required, the decision whether to grant leave to amend “is
entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Jordan v. County of Los Angeles,
669 F.2d 1311, 1324 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1982).
“Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to
amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment,
and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley,
356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Nunes v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 815, 818 (9th
Cir.2003)). “Some courts have stressed prejudice to the opposing party as the key
factor.” Texaco v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). However, “[u]ndue
delay is a valid reason for denying leave to amend.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted); but see Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Undue
delay by itself, however, is insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.”). Further,
“the liberality of Rule 15(a) does not mean that amendment will be allowed regardless of
the diligence of the moving party. Where the party seeking amendment knows or should
know of the facts upon which the proposed amendment is based but fails to include them
in the original complaint, the motion to amend may be denied.” Jordan, 669 F.3d at
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-2663-CAS (AJWx)
Date
June 25, 2013
Title
ANTHONY YUZWA V. M V OOSTERDAM, ET AL.
1324. “Late amendments to assert new theories are not reviewed favorably when the
facts and the theory have been known to the party seeking amendment since the inception
of the cause of action.” Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Delay can contribute to a finding of prejudice, for
“expense, delay, and wear and tear on individuals and companies count toward
prejudice.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
III.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks to file a proposed SAC that makes two minor changes to plaintiff’s
FAC, at least as far as Stiletto is concerned. See Mot. at 7–10 (detailing proposed
amendments to the FAC).2 First, plaintiff seeks to add allegations concerning the
diversity of citizenship of the parties, allegations that plaintiff maintains he inadvertently
omitted from his FAC. Second, plaintiff seeks to modify his negligence and breach of
warranty and workmanlike performance claims against Stiletto to state his entitlement to
damages in greater detail. Other than the aforementioned alterations, plaintiff’s legal
theories, claims, and allegations in his proposed SAC are identical to the operative FAC.
In light of the foregoing, there appears to be no reason to deny plaintiff the
opportunity to file the proposed SAC. While these proposed modifications likely could
have been included in plaintiff’s FAC, this does not end the inquiry. The amendments
that plaintiff seeks to make are sufficiently minor in character, as far as Stiletto is
concerned, that these amendments will present no case management issues nor impair the
efficient adjudication of this action.
Indeed, Stiletto was on notice of these proposed amendments as of the filing of
plaintiff’s ex parte application to amend his first motion to file an amended complaint,
and it has failed to articulate any reason why it would suffer prejudice if the proposed
SAC is filed. Defendant’s contentions that this amended pleading will make it difficult to
conduct discovery, or that it is prejudiced by the “uncertainty” of plaintiff’s actions, are
2
The third amendment that plaintiff seeks to make—withdrawing his claims for
products liability and breach of warranty against foreign manufacturer defendants—does
not implicate Stiletto in any way. Plaintiff has already dismissed these defendants
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Dkt. No. 53.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-2663-CAS (AJWx)
Date
June 25, 2013
Title
ANTHONY YUZWA V. M V OOSTERDAM, ET AL.
without merit. The Court can discern no reason why discovery will proceed any
differently under the proposed SAC than with plaintiff’s current complaint, and defendant
offers none. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff may file his proposed SAC.
IV.
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to file the
proposed Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk shall file the proposed SAC forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
:
00
CMJ
Page 5 of 5
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?