Folkens v. Wyland, et al

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 12/31/2015 DENYING 20 Motion to Amend the Complaint. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

PIETER AREND FOLKENS, dba A
HIGHER PORPOISE DESIGN GROUP,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

v.

No. 2:14-cv-02197-GEB-CKD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

WYLAND (NFN), aka ROBERT
THOMAS WYLAND, an individual;
WYLAND WORLDWIDE, LLC, a
California Corporation;
WYLAND GALLERIES, INC, a
California Corporation; and
SIGNATURE GALLERY GROUP,
INC., a Nevada Corporation,
dba WYLAND GALLERIES,
Defendants.

17
18

On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion under

19

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15 and 20 for leave to

20

amend and supplement its Complaint and for joinder of additional

21

Defendants. (Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to Amend (“Mot.”) 3:19, ECF No.

22

20-2.) Defendants oppose the motion arguing:

23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff does not acknowledge that his
motion comes seven months after the pleading
amendment deadline in March 2015 and does not
even seek relief from the Scheduling Order.
. . . Plaintiff’s tactics demonstrate either
lack of diligence or purposeful last-minute
maneuvering, neither of which support[s] this
radical expansion of Plaintiff’s claims or
parties to the litigation. This expansion
would also prejudice Defendants because they
would
have
no
opportunity
to
conduct
1

1
2

discovery about the new allegations.
(Defs.’ Opp’n (“Opp’n”) 2:4-21, ECF No. 21.)
Plaintiff’s

3

opening

brief

failed

address

the

“good

4

cause” standard in Rule 16 which governs a request to amend the

5

Status

6

(Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (“Order”). Nor does Plaintiff

7

address

8

Complaint or joinder of party it seeks can be effected without

9

amending the Order.

(Pretrial

in

its

Scheduling)

opening

Order

brief

filed

whether

any

on

March

4,

supplement

2015,

to

its

Plaintiff addresses Rule 16’s “good cause”

10

standard for the first time in its reply brief. However, “[t]he

11

district court need not consider arguments raised for the first

12

time in a reply brief.” Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th

13

Cir. 2007). Therefore, this argument is disregarded.
“Rule

14

16(b)'

s

‘good

cause’

standard

primarily

15

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The

16

district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot

17

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

18

extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

19

609 (9th Cir. 1992). Since Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate

20

that good cause justifies amending the Order, Plaintiff’s motion

21

filed on October 29, 2015 is denied.

22

Dated:

December 31, 2015

23
24
25
26
27
28
2