Pacific Northwest Inc. v. Randhawa et al

Filing 108

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 05/20/11 ORDERING that plf's 95 Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED; w/i 10 days plf may file the Revised Proposed Second Amended Complaint attached to its 100 Reply. Although the Court recognizes that dfts' Opposition requests an across-the board extension of all dates set forth in the PTSO in the event this motion is granted, any motion in that regard is neither properly before the Court at this time nor adequately briefed. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PARADISE NORTHWEST INC.,
No. 2:09-cv-02027-MCE-DAD

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

ORDER

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

16
Defendants.
17
18

----oo0oo----

19
20

Presently before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File a

21

Second Amended Complaint filed on behalf of Plaintiff Paradise

22

Northwest Inc. (“Plaintiff”).

23

amendment, Plaintiff also asks that the Pretrial Scheduling Order

24

(“PTSO”) in this matter be modified accordingly.

25

In order to effectuate that

In requesting leave to file its amended pleading, Plaintiff

26

relied on the liberal standard for doing so under Federal Rule of

27

Civil Procedure 15(a).

28

///
1

1

Eminence Capital LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th

2

Cir. 2003) (“Generally Rule 15 advises the court that ‘leave

3

shall be freely given when justice so requires.’

4

‘to be applied with extreme liberality.’”) (internal citations

5

omitted).

6

This policy is

Once a district court has filed a PTSO pursuant to Federal

7

Rule of Civil Procedure 16,1 however, the standards set forth in

8

Rule 16, as opposed to Rule 15, are controlling.

9

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

Johnson v.

10

Here the PTSO was issued on February 19, 2010, and permitted

11

further amendments to the pleadings only on a showing of good

12

cause.

13

setting forth that prerequisite for amendment on a good cause

14

showing as well.

Likewise, Rule 16 authorizes deviation from the PTSO

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

19

seeking the amendment.”

20

this standard, the Ninth Circuit has stated that:

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

In explaining

27
1

28

Unless otherwise stated, all references to “Rule” or
“Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

[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.
Id. (citations omitted).

8

Although Plaintiff’s alternative request to amend the PTSO

9

did ostensibly cite to the correct Rule 16 standard, the Motion

10

for Leave to File an Amended Complaint itself, as stated above,

11

cited incorrectly to Rule 15(a).

12

papers, nor Defendants’ opposition, properly analyzed the issue

13

of whether Plaintiff was diligent in seeking to amend its

14

pleadings under a Rule 16 analysis.

15

May 3, 2011, the Court requested additional briefing on that

16

issue and continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion, originally

17

set for May 5, 2011, to May 19, 2011, in order to accommodate

18

that briefing.

19

Moreover, neither Plaintiff’s

Consequently, by Order filed

Both Plaintiff and Defendants filed supplemental briefs on

20

May 10, 2011.

Plaintiff maintains that the proposed amendment

21

conforms to proof adduced at several depositions in this matter

22

taken between March 1 and 3, 2011.

23

depositions served to clarify the allegations previously made

24

against Defendants, and Plaintiff seeks to effectuate that

25

clarification by way of amendment.

26

filed less than three weeks after the depositions in question

27

were completed, it appears Plaintiff has been diligent in seeking

28

to amend its complaint.
3

Plaintiff alleges that those

Since the present motion was

1

Moreover, because trial in this case is not scheduled until

2

January of 2012, there is no indication of any prejudice to

3

Defendants from permitting the requested amendment.

4

Defendants’ opposition, for the most part, consists of

5

substantive challenges to the proposed amended pleading that,

6

while potentially appropriate in response to the Second Amended

7

Complaint, once filed, are not proper in the context of whether

8

Plaintiff should as an initial matter be permitted to file its

9

amended complaint.

Although Defendants do claim that Plaintiff’s

10

personnel should have known about the alleged details of various

11

alleged oral contracts between Plaintiff and Defendants as soon

12

as they occurred, the Court believes it not implausible that

13

certain details were not flushed out by Plaintiff’s counsel until

14

depositions of its personnel were obtained.

15

conclude that any shortcoming in that regard amounts to a lack of

16

diligence per se.

The Court cannot

17

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

18

Complaint (ECF No. 95, incorrectly docketed as a “Motion for

19

Leave to File Amended Motion to Dismiss”) is accordingly

20

GRANTED.2

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

2

Because oral argument was not deemed to be of material
assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the
briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).
4

1

Plaintiff may file the “Revised” Proposed Second Amended

2

Complaint attached to its Reply (ECF No. 100)3 not later than ten

3

(10) days following the filing of this Order.

4

recognizes that Defendants’ Opposition requests an across-the-

5

board extension of all dates set forth in the PTSO in the event

6

this motion is granted, any motion in that regard is neither

7

properly before the Court at this time nor adequately briefed.

8
9

Although the Court

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 20, 2011

10
11

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

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3

25
26
27
28

Defendants’ objection to the “Revised” Proposed Second
Amended Complaint, made on grounds that said revised version is
improperly procedurally as included within Plaintiff’s reply, is
hereby overruled. The purpose of the “Revised” pleading was
simply to respond to Defendants’ own argument that the Court’s
interim dismissal of Plaintiff’s RICO claim nullified various
portions of the proposed amended pleading as submitted before
that dismissal took place.
5