Patterson v. City of Yuba City et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM, And ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/16/15 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to Amend 16 is DENIED without prejudice.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LONNIE CRAIG PATTERSON,

12
13
14

No. 2:12-CV-01350-MCE-CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CITY OF YUBA CITY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Lonnie Craig Patterson (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Defendants

18

City of Yuba City and Police Chief Robert D. Landon.1 Presently before the Court is

19

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 16) to name a number of police

20

officers in lieu of currently named Doe defendants and to eliminate some claims. For the

21

following reasons, that Motion is DENIED.2

22

Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)3 requires the Court to enter a

23

pretrial scheduling order within 120 days of the serving of the complaint. The scheduling

24

order “controls the course of the action” unless modified by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P.

25

1

26

2

27

Defendant Landon was subsequently dismissed on the joint request of the parties. ECF No. 19.

Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this
matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g).
3

28

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

1

1

16(d). Orders entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified upon a

2

showing of “good cause,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); see also Johnson v. Mammoth

3

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Because a Pretrial Scheduling

4

Order (“PTSO”) was issued in this matter on November 18, 2014 (ECF No. 12), and

5

because the PTSO provides at paragraph II that no further amendment would be

6

permitted absent a showing of good cause, the Court must first consider whether

7

Defendants have shown the requisite “good cause” to deviate from the PTSO under

8

Rule 16(b).

9

Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

10

seeking the amendment. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The district court may modify the

11

pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party

12

seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983

13

amendment); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding

14

of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

15

“Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification

16

might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the

17

moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. If the moving party was not

18

diligent, the Court’s inquiry should end. Id.

19

The remaining Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion arguing that Plaintiff cannot

20

show the requisite diligence because he has known the identities of the officers he

21

wishes to substitute for several years. Defs.’ Opp., ECF No. 20, at 1. Defendant cites

22

substantial documentation from this lawsuit, from a companion civil suit, and from

23

Plaintiff’s own criminal proceedings supporting their conclusion that Plaintiff was well

24

aware, going back to at least November 2010, of the identity of the officers involved in

25

his 2010 arrest. See Decl. of Carrie A. Frederickson, ECF No. 20-1, ¶¶ 2-4,4 Exs. A-C;

26

Decl. of Bruce A. Kilday, ECF No. 20-2, ¶ 2, Exs. D-F. Given this evidence, Defendant’s

27
28

4

Defendants’ unopposed Request for Judicial Notice as to Exhibit A to the Frederickson
Declaration is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 866 (9th Cir.
2002).

2

1

argument is well taken, and the Court finds Plaintiff failed to show he exercised the

2

requisite diligence warranting an order granting him leave to amend now.

3

Plaintiff does not dispute the veracity of Defendant’s evidence and instead asks

4

the Court to exercise its discretion to apply the more liberal standard set forth in Federal

5

Rule of Civil Procedure 15. See Pl.’s Reply, ECF No. 21, at 2 (citing Febus-Cruz v.

6

Sauri-Santiago, 652 F. Supp. 2d 166, 167 n.1 (D. Puerto Rico 2009)). Plaintiff’s only

7

authority is inapposite, however, because in that case the district court applied Rule 15

8

after it determined its own scheduling order was not clear on when parties might seek

9

leave to amend without being subject to the Rule 16 standard. In this case, to the

10

contrary, the PTSO made clear that, going forward, all requests for leave to amend

11

would be subject to Rule 16. See ECF No. 12 at 1 (“No joinder of parties or

12

amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been

13

shown.”). Plaintiff offers no other authority, let alone binding authority, indicating the

14

Court should apply Rule 15. Plaintiff’s request is thus rejected. As such, Plaintiff has

15

failed to show the requisite good cause, and his Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF

16

No. 16) is DENIED without prejudice.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 16, 2015

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3