Gregoire v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 82

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 09/21/2017 GRANTING 75 Motion to Amend the Complaint. Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint FORTHWITH. (Donati, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID W. GREGOIRE, 12 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-01857-TLN-DB Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint and modify the 18 pretrial scheduling order and the final pretrial order. (ECF No. 75.) Defendants have filed a 19 statement of non-opposition agreeing that amendment of the complaint “will simplify the issues 20 presented to the jury and promote judicial efficiency.” (ECF No. 78.) Due to this non-opposition, 21 the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint forthwith. Upon its filing, a 22 revised final pretrial order will issue deleting the substance of Section XV of the original final 23 pretrial order. 24 Two additional matters deserve mention. Plaintiff’s motion set the matter for hearing on 25 less than 28 days notice in violation of Local Rule 230(b). Moreover, Plaintiff’s attorney 26 acknowledges in his declaration that the Rule 16(b) standard for amendment is “good cause.” 27 (ECF No. 76 at 1.) As mentioned at the final pretrial conference, “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 28 standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. 1 1 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff’s attorney’s declaration 2 makes no effort to show diligence. A scheduling order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly 3 entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Id. at 610. The same is 4 true of the Local Rules. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: September 21, 2017 8 9 10 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?