Artis v. John Deere Landscapes, Inc. et al

Filing 69

ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING AND PARTIALLY DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND VACATING HEARING, Order by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 59 Motion to Amend/Correct ;.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 HOLLY ARTIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 12 13 No. C 10-05289 WHA v. 14 DEERE & COMPANY and JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES, INC., 15 Defendants. / 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING AND PARTIALLY DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND VACATING HEARING INTRODUCTION In this purported class action for gender discrimination, plaintiff moves for leave to file a second amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. STATEMENT Plaintiff commenced this purported class action in November 2010. She filed an amended 23 complaint in March 2011, and that pleading remains operative. It purported to bring the action 24 “on behalf of a Title VII class of all female job applicants and deterred applicants for entry level 25 sales, customer service and shipping and receiving positions in DEERE’s Equipment Operations 26 divisions who have been or may be denied employment” by defendants (Amd. Compl. ¶ 7). 27 28 1 A case management conference was held a week after plaintiff filed her amended 2 complaint. Following the conference, a case management scheduling order was issued on 3 March 28, 2011. That order stated: “Leave to add any new parties or pleading amendments must 4 be sought by JULY 29, 2011” (Dkt. No. 24 at 1). 5 In July 2011, plaintiff requested an extension of the deadline for seeking leave to add 6 named plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 44). The request was based on a discovery delay caused by 7 defendants’ stonewalling. It was granted in August 2011. Plaintiff was instructed that she “may 8 file a motion for leave to add named plaintiffs by SEPTEMBER 22, 2011” (Dkt. No. 51 at 3–4). September 22, 2011. The proposed pleading adds two named plaintiffs and also contains other 11 For the Northern District of California Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on 10 United States District Court 9 amendments (Dkt. No. 59). Defendants do not oppose the addition of the two new plaintiffs, but 12 they do oppose the other proposed amendments (Dkt. No. 63). Plaintiff describes those additional 13 changes as “amend[ing] allegations to conform to the evidence produced to date and narrow[ing] 14 the class” (Br. 1). Defendants, on the other hand, view them as “substantially expand[ing] the 15 scope of the class” (Opp. 1). This order follows full briefing. 16 17 ANALYSIS FRCP 15(a) states that a court should freely grant leave to amend when justice so requires. 18 Leave to amend, however, is not automatic. A district court may “deny leave to amend due to 19 undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure 20 deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue 21 of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Zucco Partners, LLC v. 22 Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). 23 Once a district court has issued a scheduling order, FRCP 16 controls. The scheduling 24 order limits the time during which a party can amend its pleadings. Without a request to modify 25 the scheduling order, a party cannot amend its pleadings. At that point, any schedule 26 modification to allow pleading amendments must be based on good cause. FRCP 16(b)(4); 27 Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Good cause requires 28 diligence by the moving 2 1 party. A modification of the pretrial schedule would be merited if the deadline could not be met 2 “despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth 3 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 4 5 Plaintiff’s request to add two more named plaintiffs was timely filed and is not opposed. As to the addition of two new named plaintiffs, the motion is GRANTED. 6 Plaintiff’s request to make other pleading amendments, however, is untimely. The 7 deadline for seeking leave to amend passed on July 29, 2011 — nearly two months before 8 plaintiff filed the instant motion. The extension plaintiff was granted in August 2011 was limited 9 to the narrow purpose of adding new named plaintiffs; it did not allow other pleading 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 amendments. Plaintiff makes no claim that she could not have met the July 29 deadline despite her 12 diligence in prosecuting her case. Plaintiff’s reply brief notes that in June 2011 she requested a 13 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant John Deere Landscapes, Inc. to be scheduled within July, 14 but that due to defendant’s scheduling constraints the deposition took place on September 8, 2011 15 (Reply Br. 4). Plaintiff was on notice of the July 29 deadline when she agreed to schedule the 16 deposition for September. 17 Plaintiff has not shown good cause for amending the case management scheduling order to 18 allow her unauthorized pleading amendments. As to the proposed amendments other than adding 19 named plaintiffs, the motion is DENIED. This order need not reach the parties’ arguments 20 concerning whether those amendments would have narrowed or expanded the proposed class and 21 whether they would have prejudiced defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended compliant 3 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint that 4 adds two more named plaintiffs, but the new pleading must be identical to the previous one in all 5 other respects. It must be filed by OCTOBER 21, 2011. The motion hearing previously set for 6 October 27, 2011, is VACATED. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: October 17, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?