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)

Download PDF
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?