Pacific Northwest Inc. v. Randhawa et al

Filing 102

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/3/11: In order to afford the parties an opportunity to address the correct standard, the presently scheduled May 5, 2011 hearing date for the Motion (ECF No. 95) is hereby continued to May 19, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. Counsel are directed to file simultaneous supplemental briefing on the issue of whether Rule 16's prerequisites have been satisfied not later than May 10, 2011. That briefing shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length. No responsive briefing will be permitted.(Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

PARADISE NORTHWEST INC.,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

No. 2:09-cv-02027-MCE-DAD

ORDER

v.
SATVINDER PALSINGH RANDHAWA,
LORNA MARIE RANDHAWA dba
GREAT EASTERN EXPORT & TRADING
COMPANY,

17
Defendants.
18
19

----oo0oo----

20

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second

21

Amended Complaint (incorrectly docketed as a Motion for Leave to

22

File First Amended Motion to Dismiss”), the Court notes that the

23

Motion’s reliance on a liberal standard for amendment, as

24

articulated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)1, is

25

improper.

26

///

27
1

28

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
1

1

Once a district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order

2

pursuant to Rule 16, as this Court did here on February 19, 2010,

3

the standards set forth by Rule 16 control.

4

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992).

5

Johnson v. Mammoth

“Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses

6

on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment

7

and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good

8

cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

9

seeking the amendment.”

10

In explaining

this standard, the Ninth Circuit has stated that:

11

[a] district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if
it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of
the party seeking the extension.’ Moreover,
carelessness is not compatible with a finding of
diligence and offers no reason for granting of relief.
Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the
party opposing the modification might supply additional
reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is
upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking
modification. If that party was not diligent, the
inquiry should end.

12
13
14
15
16
17

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

Id. (citations omitted).

18

Neither Plaintiff, in bringing the instant Motion to Amend,

19

or Defendants, in opposing Plaintiff’s request, have discussed

20

the proper Rule 16 standard upon which said Motion must be

21

adjudicated.

22

address the correct standard, the presently scheduled May 5, 2011

23

hearing date for the Motion (ECF No. 95) is hereby continued to

24

May 19, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

In order to afford the parties an opportunity to

2

1

Counsel are directed to file simultaneous supplemental briefing

2

on the issue of whether Rule 16’s prerequisites have been

3

satisfied not later than May 10, 2011.

4

exceed ten (10) pages in length.

5

permitted.

6
7

That briefing shall not

No responsive briefing will be

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 3, 2011

8
9
10

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3