Thompson et al v. City of Redding et al

Filing 37

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 6/29/11 ORDERING that defendants' motion to file an amended answer is, GRANTED. The hearing set for July 5, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. on this motion is hereby VACATED. Defendants shall file their amended answer within five days of the date of this Order. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

E. J. THOMPSON, VALERY
THOMPSON, MIDSTATE PROPERTIES,
VIOLET MANOR and CEDARS ROAD,
LLC,

14

NO. CIV. 2:09-1609 WBS CMK
Plaintiffs,

15
v.

ORDER RE: MOTION TO AMEND

16
17

CITY OF REDDING, DEBORAH WRIGHT,
WILLIAM NAGEL, and DOES 1 through
10,

18
19

Defendants.
________________________________/

20
21

----oo0oo----

22

Defendants City of Redding, Deborah Wright, and William

23

Nagel seek leave of court to amend their answer to add additional

24

defenses based on newly discovered facts.

25

defendants seek to amend their answer to include estoppel

26

defenses in light of their recent realization that plaintiffs

27

have filed and been discharged from bankruptcy, but did not list

28

this lawsuit as assets in their bankruptcy proceedings even
1

Specifically,

1

though it was pending when they filed bankruptcy.

Plaintiffs

2

have not opposed defendants’ motion to amend their answer.1
Generally, a motion to amend is subject to Rule 15(a)

3
4

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that

5

“[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so

6

requires.”

7

district court ha[s] filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant

8

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16[,] which establishe[s] a

9

timetable for amending pleadings[,] that rule’s standards

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

However, “[o]nce the

10

control[].”

11

607-08 (9th Cir. 1992).

12

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order on November 13, 2009, which states

13

that further amendments to the pleadings are prohibited “except

14

with leave of court, good cause having been shown under Federal

15

Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).”

16

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
Here, the court issued a Status

(Docket No. 18.)

Under Rule 16(b), a party seeking leave to amend must

17

demonstrate “good cause.”

18

‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the

19

party seeking amendment.”

20

party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”

21

“the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for

22

seeking modification[,]” a court may consider the prejudice to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

“Rule 16(b)’s

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.
Id.

“If that
Although

23
24
1

25
26
27
28

Eastern District Local Rule 230(c) required plaintiffs
to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition by June 20,
2011. When plaintiffs failed to file either document, the court
contacted plaintiffs’ counsel, and he indicated that plaintiffs
did not intend to oppose defendants’ motion and that a statement
of non-opposition would be forthcoming. Despite a second
reminder from the court, plaintiffs have failed to file a
statement of non-opposition.
2

1

the other parties when making its determination.2

2

See id.

In the declaration submitted with defendants’ motion to

3

amend their answer, defendants’ counsel details the procedural

4

and factual background leading to defendants’ current request for

5

leave to amend their answer.

6

have been diligent in seeking amendment and, based on the lack of

7

opposition from plaintiffs and the fact that discovery is not set

8

to close until November 30, 2011, it does not appear that

9

plaintiffs will be prejudiced if defendants are granted leave to

The court finds that defendants

10

file an amended answer.

11

shown good cause for leave to file the proposed amended answer

12

(Docket No. 33-2), the court will grant defendants’ motion.

13

Accordingly, because defendants have

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to file

14

an amended answer be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

15

hearing set for July 5, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. on this motion is

16

hereby vacated.

17

The

Defendants shall file their amended answer within five

18

days of the date of this Order.

19

DATED:

June 29, 2011

20
21
22
2

23
24
25
26
27
28

If good cause is found, the court should then evaluate
the request to amend the complaint in light of Rule 15(a)’s
liberal standard. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608. Courts commonly
consider four factors when deciding whether to grant a motion for
leave to amend a complaint under Rule 15(a): bad faith, undue
delay, prejudice, and futility of amendment. Roth v. Marquez,
942 F.2d 617, 628 (9th Cir. 1991). Because Rule 16(b)’s “good
cause” inquiry essentially incorporates the first three factors,
if a court finds that good cause exists, it should then deny a
motion for leave to amend only if such amendment would be futile.
Plaintiffs have not suggested that defendants’ proposed
amendments would be futile.
3