Dowling v. County of Santa Clara
Filing
62
ORDER DENYING 24 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING 27 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CLAIMS PRESENTATION REQUIREMENT. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/6/2017. The 12/14/2017 hearing is vacated. No appearance necessary. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
11
EVAN W DOWLING,
Case No. 5:16-cv-06866-EJD
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
Defendant.
15
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM CLAIMS
PRESENTATION REQUIREMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 24, 27
16
17
Plaintiff Evan Dowling is an employee of Defendant County of Santa Clara. Compl. ¶ 7,
18
Dkt. No. 1. On November 29, 2016, Dowling filed his complaint in this case, which asserts several
19
claims for discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the
20
Fair Employment and Housing Act. Id.
21
On February 23, 2017, the parties submitted a joint case management statement, in which
22
23
24
Dowling stated that he “intends to amend his Complaint to plead a violation of Labor Code §
1102.5” and to “supplement his cause of action for retaliation in violation of FEHA to include
retaliatory conduct which has occurred since his return to work on November 21, 2016.” Dkt. No.
25
15 at 8.
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06866-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CLAIMS PRESENTATION
REQUIREMENT
1
1
Also on February 23, 2017, this Court issued a case management order, which stated:
2
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for joinder of any
additional parties, or other amendments to the pleadings, is sixty
days after entry of this order. The parties are instructed to comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 in seeking joinder of parties
or amendments to the pleadings prior to expiration of the deadline.
Amendments sought after the deadline must comply with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 16.
6
Dkt. No. 16 at 1. Under the case management order, the parties were required to file any amended
7
pleadings by April 24, 2017 (i.e., within sixty days of the entry of the order on February 23, 2017).
8
Id.
3
4
On July 19, 2017, Dowling filed a motion for leave amend his complaint to add a cause of
9
action under Labor Code § 1102 and to add factual allegations. Dkt. No. 24. That motion is
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
presently before the Court.
“[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the
12
13
court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
14
15(a)(2). “[R]ule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme
15
liberality.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal citations
16
and quotations omitted). However, where a party moves to amend after a specific deadline to
17
amend pleadings, the stricter “good cause” standard for modification of a scheduling order under
18
Rule 16(b) governs. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir.
19
1992).
20
Here, the deadline to amend pleadings was April 24, 2017. Dkt. No. 16 at 1. Dowling filed
21
his motion for leave to amend on July 19, 2017—almost three months after the deadline. Dkt. No.
22
24. Accordingly, the “good cause” standard under Rule 16 applies. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607–
23
08; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with
24
the judge’s consent.”). A court should modify a pretrial deadline only if the deadline “cannot
25
reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06866-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CLAIMS PRESENTATION
REQUIREMENT
2
1
609 (quoting the advisory committee notes to the 1983 amendment to Rule 16).
The Court finds that Dowling has failed to show that he made diligent efforts to meet the
2
3
April 24 deadline. The parties’ February 23 joint case management statement shows that, as of that
4
date, Dowling was aware of the facts and allegations that he intended to add to his complaint. Dkt.
5
No. 16 at 1. In his reply brief in support of his motion for leave to amend, Dowling asserts (for the
6
first time1) that he was unable to meet the April 24 deadline because, on that date, he “was in the
7
middle of an 18-workday medical leave of absence,” and because of the “ongoing accrual of his
8
claims.” Dkt. No. 51 at 1. However, Dowling fails to explain why either of these circumstances
9
prevented him from amending his complaint before the April 24 deadline. Moreover, as the
County explains, Dowling returned from medical leave on May 8 but did not move to amend his
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
complaint until July 19. Dkt. No. 57-1 at 2.
Accordingly, Dowling’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 24) is
12
13
DENIED because Dowling has not shown good cause for modifying the Court’s scheduling order
14
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Dowling’s motion for relief from the claims presentation
15
requirements in Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905 and 945.4 (Dkt. No. 27), with respect to his proposed
16
amendments, is DENIED AS MOOT.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: December 6, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The County moves for leave to file a sur-reply to respond to facts and evidence that Dowling
raised for the first time in his reply brief. Dkt. No. 57. The County’s motion is GRANTED.
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06866-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CLAIMS PRESENTATION
REQUIREMENT
3
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?