Jackson v. United States of America et al
Filing
92
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER AMENDING RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 71 .. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD L. PUGLISI on 06/13/2012. (eps) -- Pla intiff may file his First Amended Complaint within seven days CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JAY )
T. POINDEXTER; ISLANDS
)
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE,
)
INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
MICHAEL J. JACKSON,
CIVIL NO. 11-00308 ACK-RLP
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
AN ORDER AMENDING RULE 16
SCHEDULING ORDER AND GRANTING
LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR AN ORDER AMENDING RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER AND
GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael J. Jackson’s
Motion for an Order Amending the Rule 16 Scheduling Order and
Granting Leave to File First Amended Complaint, filed on April
24, 2012 (“Motion”).
Docket No. 71.
Defendant United States of
America filed a Statement of No Opposition to the Motion on April
27, 2012.
Docket No. 74.
Defendant Jay T. Poindexter (“Dr.
Poindexter”) filed his Opposition on May 29, 2012 (“Poindexter
Opp.).
Docket No. 87.
Defendant Island Emergency Medical
Service, Inc. (“IEMS”) filed its Opposition on May 30, 2012
(“IEMS Opp.”).
Docket No. 89.
June 12, 2012.
Docket No. 91.
Plaintiff filed his Reply on
The Court found this matter
suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule
7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Docket No. 72.
After
carefully reviewing the submissions and the relevant legal
authority, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from events that occurred in May
2009.
As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff was seen by a
physician at the Veteran’s Administration Kona Community Based
Outpatient Clinic (“Kona VA”) complaining of severe pain,
swelling, and numbness in his lower right leg on May 1, 2009.
Compl. ¶ 12.
The physician at the Kona VA suspected an arterial
blockage and sent Plaintiff to the Kona Community Hospital
Emergency Room for evaluation.
Id.
Plaintiff was examined by
Defendant Dr. Poindexter who mis-diagnosed Plaintiff with
claudication and discharged him with instructions to follow up
with a vascular surgeon.
Id. ¶¶ 13-15.
Plaintiff followed up
with the Kona VA and was scheduled to see a vascular surgeon at
the Straub Clinic and Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, on May 12,
2009.
Id. ¶¶ 17-18.
Plaintiff underwent surgery on May 13,
2009, to revascularize his right leg.
Id. ¶ 19.
However, the
surgery was only temporarily successful, and Plaintiff’s right
leg was amputated above the knee on June 25, 2009.
Id.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff brought claims against
Defendants for negligence, medical malpractice, and breach of
warranties.
Id. ¶¶ 20-32.
In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave
to amend his complaint to add claims against IEMS for negligent
2
investigation, hiring, supervision and/or retention of Dr.
Poindexter.
Mem. in Supp. of Mot. at 12-13; Proposed First
Amended Complaint, attached as Ex. 1 to Mot., ¶¶ 33-47.
DISCUSSION
The deadline to file motions to amend pleadings was
December 23, 2011.1
See Docket Nos. 33, 79 (“Scheduling Order”).
Because the Scheduling Order deadline to file motions to amend
pleadings has passed, Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend his
Complaint is governed under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d
604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Once the district court filed a
pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 16 which established a timetable for amending pleadings
that rule’s standards controlled.”).
Rule 16(b)(4) provides that
a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with
the judge’s consent.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
The good cause
inquiry focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to modify
the scheduling order:
if the party seeking the modification was
not diligent, the court should deny the motion.
Zivkovic v. S.
Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).
The
scheduling order “may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met
1
Before this Motion was fully briefed, the Court issued an
Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order setting a new trial date of May
7, 2013. See Docket Nos. 79, 83. The Amended Rule 16 Scheduling
Order did not change the previously set deadline for filing
motions to amend the pleadings. Id.
3
despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’”
(quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).
Id.
Additionally, the court may
deny a request to amend the scheduling order on the basis of
prejudice to the party opposing the modification.
Johnson, 975
F.2d at 609.
Here, good cause exists to amend the Scheduling Order
to allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
First, even
though Plaintiff did not file the present motion within the time
frame allowed by the Scheduling Order, it was reasonable for
Plaintiff to conduct an independent investigation into the facts
that he alleges support the new claims before seeking to amend
his pleading.
Second, as noted above, the Court issued an
Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order on May 11, 2012, setting a new
trial date of May 7, 2013.
See Docket Nos. 79, 83.
With trial
nearly a year away, Defendants have ample time to conduct
discovery related to the new claims or file dispositive motions
based on the potential arguments identified in their oppositions.
See IEMS Opp. at 13.
Third, the Court is not persuaded by
Defendants’ arguments that the proposed amendments should be
denied because of prejudice.
The authority cited by Dr.
Poindexter in support of his arguments regarding prejudice is
inapposite.
See Poindexter Opp. at 9-11.
Those cases involved
admissibility determinations regarding specific evidence for
purposes of trial and did not address whether negligent hiring
4
claims can be included in medical malpractice complaints.
Any
issues regarding the relevance and admissibility of potential
evidence related to the new claims should be resolved after such
evidence is obtained and not in the abstract at this early stage.
Although the admissibility of evidence regarding Dr. Poindexter’s
treatment of other patients may be an issue at or before trial,
that possibility does not preclude amendment of the complaint.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
Motion for an Order Amending Rule 16 Scheduling Order and
Granting Leave to File First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff may
file his First Amended Complaint within seven days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: HONOLULU, HAWAII, JUNE 13, 2012.
_____________________________
Richard L. Puglisi
United States Magistrate Judge
JACKSON V. UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, ET AL., CIVIL NO. 11-00308 ACK-RLP;
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN
ORDER AMENDING RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER AND GRANTING LEAVE TO
FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
5
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?