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