Agricola Baja Best, S. De. R.L. de C.V. v. Harris Moran Seed Company

Filing 48

ORDER Denying 40 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and For Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to establish reasonable diligence, and therefore Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend is Denied. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 8/20/2013. (leh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AGRICOLA BAJA BEST, S. De. R.L.
de C.V.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

CASE NO. 11cv2482 - IEG (JMA)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
[Doc. No. 40]

vs.

14
15

HARRIS MORAN SEED
COMPANY,

16

Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court is Plaintiff Agricola Baja Best, S. De. R.L. de C.V.’s motion
for leave to amend. [Doc. No. 40.] For the reasons below, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion.
BACKGROUND
This case arises from the loss of a commercial tomato crop. Plaintiff is a
commercial grower with tomato fields located in an area populated by thrips, small
winged insects which spread the Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus (“TSWV”). [Doc. No.
11 at ¶ 11.] Plaintiff purchased purportedly TSWV-resistant tomato seeds from
Defendant Harris Moran Seed Company on or about November 24, 2010, and
contends that plants grown from those seeds were damaged by TSWV, diminishing
yield and profit. [See id. at ¶¶ 10, 19, 20.]
Plaintiff commenced suit on October 26, 2011, and filed the operative First
-1-

11cv2482

1

Amended Complaint on March 7, 2012, alleging breach of contract, breach of

2

express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied

3

warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, products liability, negligence, negligent

4

misrepresentation, and fraud. [See Doc. No. 11.] On September 13, 2012, the Court

5

entered a scheduling order holding, inter alia, that “[a]ny motion . . . to amend the

6

pleadings . . . shall be filed on or before December 3, 2012.” [Doc. No. 21 at 1.

7

(emphasis in original).] The parties moved for and received several discovery

8

deadline extensions. [See Doc. Nos. 27, 29, 36, 38.] In its May 2, 2013 motion to

9

extend, Plaintiff expressed intent to seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint

10

(“SAC”) within two weeks. [Doc. No. 36 at 2,3.] Both its own self-imposed two

11

week deadline and the December 3, 2012 scheduling order deadline passed without

12

Plaintiff filing a motion to amend or seeking a further extension. Nor did Plaintiff’s

13

counsel express continued intent to amend during any subsequent communications

14

with defense counsel. [See Doc. 43-4 at ¶ 17.] Only with the present motion, filed

15

over six months past the scheduling order deadline, does Plaintiff seek leave to file

16

an SAC alleging new legal theories relating to the rate of germination and level of

17

disease resistance of the seeds. [Doc. No. 40 at 2-3.]

18

DISCUSSION

19

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a movant seeking leave to

20

amend after an expired scheduling order deadline bears the burden of “show[ing]

21

good cause for not having amended their complaints before the time specified in the

22

scheduling order expired.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th

23

Cir. 2000); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-608

24

(9th Cir. 1992) (“Once the district court ha[s] filed a pretrial scheduling order

25

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 which established a timetable for

26

amending pleadings that rule’s standards control[].”).

27
28

“Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith
of the party seeking . . . amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule
-2-

11cv2482

1

16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking

2

the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; see also Onyx Pharm., Inc. v. Bayer

3

Corp., 2011 WL 4527402, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2011) (the “moving party must

4

show reasonable diligence.”). “To show the requisite diligence, the party seeking

5

amendment must establish both that her noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline

6

occurred because of the development of matters which could not have been

7

reasonably foreseen or anticipated and that she was diligent in seeking amendment

8

of the Rule 16 order once it became apparent that she could not comply.” Life

9

Technologies Corp. v. Ebioscience, Inc., 2012 WL 3628624, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug.

10

21, 2012) (internal quotation omitted); accord Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp.,

11

2010 WL 3743532, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2010) (a party that “has failed to

12

explain why [it] did not move [] earlier,” “has failed to satisfy the Rule 16(b) good

13

cause standard.”).

14

The record here does not reflect reasonable diligence and therefore Plaintiff

15

fails to establish good cause. Plaintiff received the alleged representations in regard

16

to and informed Defendant of the germination issue well before the inception of this

17

lawsuit, i.e., years before the scheduling order’s deadline. [See, e.g., Doc. No. 44 at

18

4; Doc. No. 40 at 3.] Thus, Plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the facts

19

underlying the proposed amendments well before the scheduling order deadline to

20

amend. The only purportedly new development since the deadline passed is a

21

determination that long-known, underlying facts support additional legal theories.

22

[Doc. No. 44 at 7 (“Plaintiff’s experts have opined that the germination rate issue is

23

basis [sic] for damages.”).] Counsel’s delayed comprehension of legal theories

24

readily available from the outset of the lawsuit does not establish reasonable

25

diligence. Rather, in light of the record, it reflects carelessness: Plaintiff failed to

26

timely pursue cognizable legal theories, failed to meet the Court-imposed deadline to

27

amend, failed to meet its own self-imposed deadline to move for leave to amend, and

28

failed to notify either the Court or opposing counsel of its continued intent to pursue
-3-

11cv2482

1

leave to amend after missing these deadlines. This record of “carelessness is not

2

compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.”

3

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607-08. Given Plaintiff’s failure to establish reasonable

4

diligence, leave to amend is DENIED. See Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison

5

Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (“If the party seeking modification ‘was

6

not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be

7

granted.”) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609); Life Technologies, 2012 WL

8

3628624, at *3 (“failure to establish reasonable diligence alone warrants denial.”).
CONCLUSION

9
10

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

DATED: August 20, 2013

_________________________________
IRMA E. GONZALEZ
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

11cv2482