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)
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?