Stiles v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, et al
Filing
278
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 11/19/2019 DENYING without prejudice 232 Motion for Leave to Add Defendants and DENYING as MOOT 262 Request to File a Sur-Reply. (Huang, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
SHARIDAN STILES and STILES 4 U,
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
16
No. 2:14-cv-02234-MCE-DMC
ORDER
v.
WALMART, INC. and AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants.
17
18
On June 28, 2019, Plaintiffs Sharidan Stiles and Stiles 4 U, Inc. (collectively,
19
“Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion for Leave to Add Defendants, ECF No. 232, which the Court
20
construes as a motion for leave to amend their fourth amended complaint. While
21
Plaintiffs’ Motion relies upon the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),
22
once a district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order (“PTSO”) pursuant to Federal
23
Rule of Civil Procedure 16,1 that Rule’s standards control. Johnson v. Mammoth
24
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992).
25
“Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of
26
the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party,
27
28
1
Unless otherwise stated, all references to “Rule” or “Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
1
1
Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking
2
the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Here, a PTSO was issued in this matter on
3
May 20, 2016. ECF No. 54. Consequently, in analyzing the propriety of the proposed
4
amendment, as the language of the PTSO itself suggests, the Court must look to
5
whether the requisite good cause has been established. Plaintiffs fail to address Rule
6
16(b)’s good cause requirement or how they were diligent in seeking leave to amend.
7
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Add Defendants, ECF No. 232, is DENIED
8
without prejudice and Defendants’ request to file a sur-reply, ECF No. 262, is DENIED
9
as moot.2
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
DATED: November 19, 2019
13
14
_______________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
28
Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter
submitted on the briefs pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).
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?