Robert Rios v. Ames True Temper Inc et al

Filing 37

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Christina A. Snyder re Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 32 . The Court GRANTS plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall have 20 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint. See Minute Order for further details. (smom)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 11-320 CAS (PJWx)

Title

ROBERT RIOS v. AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.

Present: The Honorable

Date

February 23, 2012

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
AMEND COMPLAINT (filed 1/26/2012)

INTRODUCTION AND 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 February 27, 2012, is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
On January 20, 2011, plaintiff Robert Rios commenced the instant action in
Riverside County Superior Court against Ames True Temper, Inc. (“Ames”) and
McCaster-Carr Supply Company (“McCaster”) (collectively “defendants”) for (1) strict
liability; (2) negligence (against Ames only); and (3) breach of warranty. The complaint
alleges that when plaintiff inflated a tire on an Ames garden hose wagon, the rim
exploded and separated, causing plaintiff serious injuries. Compl., Attachment L-7. On
February 22, 2011, defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction.
At the June 27, 2011, scheduling conference, the Court set an August 26, 2011,
deadline to request leave to file amended pleadings. Dkt. No. 19. On September 2, 2011,
after the deadline had passed, plaintiff’s attorney Daniel Powell deposed Michael Weik,
an Ames employee, as “the person most knowledgeable concerning the Ames True
Temper Reel Easy Estate Hose Wagon in question.” Dkt. No. 33 ¶ 2. At that deposition,
Powell allegedly learned that Ames had knowledge that the rim could separate and
knowledge of a safe and inexpensive alternative, but did not recall the product. Id. ¶¶ 7,
8. According to plaintiff, this testimony provides grounds for pursuing punitive damages
against defendant.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 11-320 CAS (PJWx)

Date

Title

February 23, 2012

ROBERT RIOS v. AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.

Accordingly, on January 26, 2012, plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file
a first amended complaint to include a prayer for punitive damages and facts to support
such a claim. Ames filed an opposition on February 6, 2012, and plaintiff filed his reply
on February 8, 2012. After carefully considering the arguments set forth by both parties,
the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

As a preliminary matter, the Court must decide whether Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) or
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) applies. Generally, a court grants a motion for leave to amend
pleadings pursuant to the permissive standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 and the deadline
has passed, Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)).
Here, the Court set a deadline of August 26, 2011, for parties to request leave to
amend. Dkt. No. 19. Therefore, plaintiff must demonstrate “good cause” for amendment
under Rule 16. If “good cause” is shown, plaintiff must demonstrate that amendment is
proper under Rule 15(a).
A.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 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. 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). “The district court is given broad discretion in
supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, and its decisions regarding the preclusive
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 11-320 CAS (PJWx)

Date

Title

February 23, 2012

ROBERT RIOS v. AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.

effect of a pretrial order . . . will not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of
discretion.” Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985).
B.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 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. (quoting Contact Lumber Co. v.
P.T. Moges Shipping Co., 918 F.2d 1446, 1454 (9th Cir. 1990)); 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 1324. And “[l]ate
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, 49 F.3d at 1370 (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).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 11-320 CAS (PJWx)

Title

ROBERT RIOS v. AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.

III.

Date

February 23, 2012

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests leave to file a first amended complaint in order to allege punitive
damages and facts to support such a claim. Plaintiff argues that the deposition of Ames’s
employee Weik establishes by “clear and convincing evidence that defendant Ames . . .
acted with malice, oppression and with despicable conduct in its failure to recall a
product it knew to be defective,” warranting punitive damages. Mot. at 4. Specifically,
plaintiff contends that on May 14, 2008, Ames conducted a quality control test of the
original product which revealed that over-inflation of the wagon’s tire could result in
separation of the rim. Id. at 3. According to plaintiff, the test also revealed that if four
safety washers were inserted, the tire would burst instead. Powell Dec. ¶ 7. Plaintiff
contends that despite these results, Ames “made a callous business decision not to recall
the defective products.” Mot. at 4. Finally, plaintiff argues that modification of the
scheduling order and leave to amend are warranted because plaintiff did not learn these
facts until after the August 26, 2011, deadline imposed by the Court. Id. at 5.
In opposition, Ames argues that plaintiff has offered no excuse for the delay, either
for taking the deposition after the deadline or waiting nearly five months after taking the
deposition to file the instant motion. Opp’n at 4. Additionally, Ames contends that
amendment would be prejudicial because it is based on the inadmissible hearsay
testimony of Powell repeating what Weik said in his deposition. Id. at 5. Finally, Ames
contends that amendment would be futile because plaintiff has not pled facts
demonstrating despicable conduct and merely makes conclusory allegations. Id. at 7.
In reply, plaintiff argues that the deposition was taken after the deadline at the
request of Weik and Ames’s counsel. Reply at 3. Plaintiff also argues that he need not
put forward admissible evidence to justify amendment at this time. Id. Additionally,
plaintiff maintains that his new allegations are sufficiently pled. Id. at 4.
The Court finds that plaintiff has shown good cause to modify the June 26, 2011
scheduling order to permit filing of the first amended complaint. Plaintiff did not learn of
facts supporting a claim for punitive damages until after the August 26, 2011 deadline.
The Weik deposition was originally set for August 2, 2011, but it was postponed until
September 2, 2011, at the request of Weik and defense counsel. Reply at 3. Therefore,
plaintiff cannot be faulted for not discovering these facts before the August 26, 2011,
deadline.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 11-320 CAS (PJWx)

Date

Title

February 23, 2012

ROBERT RIOS v. AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.

Additionally, Ames has failed to demonstrate prejudice that would result from
granting plaintiff’s motion, while denying the motion might result in prejudice to plaintiff
who would be precluded from recovering damages to which he may otherwise be
entitled. See Morris v. Parke, Davis & Co., a Div. of Warner-Lambert, 573 F. Supp.
1324, 1327 (C.D. Cal. 1983) (“The California courts have repeatedly upheld the right of
plaintiffs to recover punitive damages in products liability cases.”). Finally, the Court
notes that the discovery deadline, which is set for April 24, 2012, has not yet passed.
Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has demonstrated “good cause” to
amend the scheduling order to permit the filing of the first amended complaint under
Rules 16 and 15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), 16(b)(4).
IV.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for leave
to file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days from the date of
this order to file an amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 5 of 5