Krause v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

Filing 41

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/11/2019 DENYING 37 Motion to Amend the Complaint and the Pretrial Scheduling Order. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GWEN KRAUSE,

12

No.
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD
DEFENDANTS DELTA ENGINEERING AND
HEATH TECNA AND AMEND PRE-TRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER

v.

14

HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.,

15

2:18-cv-00928-JAM-AC

Defendant.

16
On February 26, 2018, Gwen Krause filed a suit against

17
18

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (“Hawaiian”) in Sacramento County

19

Superior Court alleging negligence.

20

Defendant removed the case to federal court.

21

ECF No. 1.

22

the pretrial scheduling order.

23

opposes Plaintiff’s motion.

Notice of Removal,

Plaintiff now moves to amend her complaint and modify
Mot., ECF No. 37.

Defendant

Opp’n, ECF No. 38.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

24
25

Compl., ECF No. 1–1.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend.1

26
27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for October 8, 2019
1
1

1
2

I.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 27, 2016, an interior panel on Defendant’s aircraft

3

fell from the ceiling and struck Plaintiff on the head.

4

¶ 12.

5

aircraft in a condition reasonably safe under the circumstances;

6

(2) reasonably inspect the aircraft; and (3) observe due care and

7

precaution.

8
9

Compl.

Plaintiff contends Defendant failed to: (1) maintain the

Compl. ¶ 15.

Plaintiff filed suit two years later.
case to federal court.

Defendant removed the

Through the course of discovery,

10

Plaintiff received the initial disclosure of Defendant’s expert.

11

Mot. at 4.

12

was attempting to shift liability to Delta Engineering, Inc.

13

(“Delta Engineering”) and Heath Tecna, Inc. (“Heath Tecna”) for

14

the design and manufacture of the panel and the panel’s latch.

15

Mot. at 4.

16

the complaint to add Delta Engineering and Heath Tecna as

17

defendants and amend the pretrial scheduling order to allow

18

Plaintiff and the new potential defendants to conduct discovery.

19

Mot. at 11.

This April 2019 disclosure revealed that Defendant

Five months later, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend

20
21

II.

OPINION

22

A.

Legal Standard

23

Once the Court has filed a pretrial scheduling order, a

24

party’s motion to amend is not solely governed by Federal Rule

25

of Civil Procedure 15.

26

Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” requirement before the Court will

27

assess the propriety of the amendment under Rule 15.

28

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992).

Rather, the moving party must satisfy

2

Johnson v.

1

This requirement primarily looks to “the diligence of the party

2

seeking the amendment.”

3

existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the

4

modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion.”

5

Id.

6

16] inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking

7

modification [of the schedule].”

8

was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”

9

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

“[T]he

But, unlike the Rule 15 analysis, “the focus of the [Rule

B.

10

Id.

If the “[moving] party
Id.

Analysis
1.

Rule 16(b)

11

The “good cause” requirement is typically not met “where

12

the party seeking to modify the pretrial scheduling order has

13

been aware of the facts and theories supporting amendment since

14

the inception of the action.”

15

“carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and

16

offers no reason for a grant of relief.”

17

610.

18

Id. at 737.

Indeed,

Johnson, 975 F.2d at

The motion to amend at issue here bears striking

19

similarities to the one before the Ninth Circuit in Johnson.

20

Johnson, the plaintiff sued Mammoth Recreations, Inc. after a

21

ski-lift accident.

22

the scheduling order’s deadline for joining additional parties,

23

the defendant told plaintiff that Mammoth Mountain Ski, not

24

Mammoth Recreations, owned and operated the ski lift.

25

606-07.

26

substitution of the proper party.

27

Johnson failed to file a motion to amend his complaint until

28

four months after the scheduling order’s deadline for joining

975 F.2d at 606.

On two occasions prior to

Id. at

Mammoth Recreations even offered to stipulate to a

3

In

Id. at 607.

Nonetheless,

1

parties.

2

amend, finding that his failure to “heed clear and repeated

3

signals that not all necessary parties had been named in the

4

complaint [did] not constitute diligence.”

5

Id. at 607.

The Court denied Johnson’s motion to

Id. at 609.

Like the defendant in Johnson, Hawaiian Airlines

6

unambiguously alerted Plaintiff to the existence of an

7

alternative defendant.

8

Plaintiff failed to amend her complaint in a timely manner.

9

April 2019, Defendant timely served expert disclosures on

And like the plaintiff in Johnson,

10

Plaintiff.

11

of Defendant’s liability expert’s report should have placed

12

Plaintiff on notice of the two potential installation and

13

manufacturer defendants.

14

paragraph of the report plainly states that Delta Engineering is

15

the “[Supplemental Type Certificated “STC”] holder for the

16

interior installation” and that Heath Tecna is the “designer and

17

manufacturer of the components used in the installation.”

18

An STC is a certificate issued when an applicant has received

19

Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) approval to modify an

20

aeronautical product from its original design.

21

Type Certificates, Federal Aviation Administration (Oct. 7,

22

2019, 12:30 PM), https://www.faa.gov/ aircraft/air_cert/

23

design_approvals/stc/.

24

Opp’n, ECF No. 38 at 4.

In

A quick scan over page one

Exh. A to Opp’n at 1.

The second

Id.

Supplemental

The report goes on to allege the following significant

25

facts: (1) Hawaiian Airlines did not manufacture or design the

26

replacement interior; (2) The interior was installed by Delta

27

Engineering; (3) As the STC holder, Delta Engineering is

28

responsible for, among other things, the design of the interior,
4

1

reporting of problems to the FAA, and the creation and

2

maintenance of inspection requirements for the interior; and

3

(4) Heath Tecna manufactured the parts, created the parts

4

catalog and maintenance manual, and issued service letters and

5

bulletins.

6

uncertain terms, attempts to shift liability from Defendant to

7

Delta Engineering and Heath Tecna for the design, manufacture,

8

and maintenance of the panel latch at issue.

9

Exh. A to Opp’n at 4.

Thus, the report, in no

Plaintiff argues her “attempt[s] to gather further

10

information under Defendant’s theory of liability as to the

11

manufacture and design of the panel” caused her five-month

12

delay.

13

given all the information provided to Plaintiff in Defendant’s

14

expert report.

15

report goes on to explain that Delta Engineering produced

16

Instructions for Continued Airworthiness and Heath Tecna

17

produced a Maintenance Manual.

18

Defendant complied with all the requirements set forth by Delta

19

Engineering and Heath Tecna.

20

Mot. at 5.

The Court finds this argument unconvincing

Beyond the information mentioned above, the

Id. at 4.

It alleges that

Id. at 5.

Put simply, the expert report contained more than enough

21

information to allow Plaintiff to “state a claim for relief that

22

[was] plausible on its face.”

23

662, 678 (2009) (A claim has facial plausibility when the

24

plaintiff pleads “factual content that allows the court to draw

25

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

26

misconduct alleged.”).

27

evidenced by the fact that Plaintiff did not, in the end,

28

acquire any additional discovery prior to filing her motion to

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

No additional discovery was needed, as

5

1
2

amend.
In sum, Plaintiff knew Delta Engineering was responsible

3

for installing the interior of the airplane, and that Health

4

Tecna designed and manufactured the components used in the

5

installation, as early as April 2019.

6

received enough information about these potential defendants to

7

make out plausible allegations against them in an amended

8

complaint.

9

her motion to amend the original complaint.

Further, Plaintiff

But Plaintiff waited until September of 2019 to file
Five months of

10

inaction without a valid reason for the delay prevent Plaintiff

11

from making the requisite showing of “good cause.”

12

the Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied Rule 16(b)’s

13

requirements.

14

Accordingly,

Because Plaintiff failed to show good cause to amend the

15

pretrial scheduling order under Rule 16(b), the Court need not

16

address whether the amendment to the complaint is proper under

17

Rule 15.

18
19

III. ORDER

20

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES

21

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint and the Pretrial

22

Scheduling Order.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 11, 2019

25
26
27
28
6