Board of Trustees of the Ken Lusby Clerks etc vs Piedmont Lumber et al

Filing 61

Order by Hon. Vince Chhabria granting 42 Motion for Leave To Amend Complaint. (vclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE KEN
LUSBY CLERKS & LUMBER
HANDLERS PENSION FUND,
Plaintiff,

6
v.

9

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
AMEND
Re: Dkt. No. 42

7
8

Case No. 13-cv-03898-VC

PIEDMONT LUMBER & MILL
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

On January 8, 2014, the Court entered a scheduling order setting March 10, 2014 as the

12

deadline for pleading amendments. (Docket No. 33). On April 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion

13

requesting a modification of that deadline and leave to amend its complaint. (Docket No. 42).

14

Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.

15

Plaintiff has established "good cause" for modifying the scheduling order, because, despite

16

its diligence, Plaintiff could not reasonably comply with the deadline for pleading amendments.

17

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

18

Plaintiff did not discover the documents upon which its proposed amendments rely until early

19

April 2014, when it conducted an independent search for public records pertaining to the Lakeport

20

Property. (King Decl. ¶ 5). These documents arguably should have been produced by Defendants

21

much earlier, but due to ongoing discovery disputes, Defendants did not—and, indeed, still have

22

not—produced them. (See Strauss Decl. ¶ 18). Once it discovered the documents, Plaintiff

23

promptly requested the scheduling order be modified.

24

Although Defendants contend that permitting Plaintiff to amend its complaint at this stage

25

would "severely prejudice" them (Opp'n 9), they do not identify a specific way in which that is so.

26

Plaintiff does not propose to add new claims or new parties. Rather, it seeks to add factual

27

allegations about the Lakeport Property—a property that was already identified in the First

28

Amended Complaint. To the extent these allegations alter Plaintiff's theory of recovery (see

1

Opp'n 8), there remains ample time for Defendants to conduct any discovery necessary to address

2

this change. (See Docket No. 33 (setting June 30, 2014 as the deadline for fact discovery)).

3

"Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any" other reason to deny leave to amend, "there exists

4

a presumption under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 15(a) in favor of" permitting amendment.

5

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis omitted).

6

Defendants have made no such showing. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is

7

GRANTED.

8

Plaintiff is ORDERED to file its Second Amended Complaint by May 29, 2014.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: May 15, 2014
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2