Strosnider v. Nampa et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 34 is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DOUG STROSNIDER,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00459-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
CITY OF NAMPA, et. al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Dkt.
34).
BACKGROUND
Under the Court’s CMO and a stipulated extension to certain deadlines, amended
pleadings were due July 29, 2015. (Dkts. 9&21). Strosnider filed his motion to amend on
November 17, 2015, almost four months after this deadline. (Dkt.34). The motion was
also filed only about a month before the discovery cutoff deadline.1 Strosnider seeks to
add a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
1

The discovery deadline was later extended to permit limited discovery because of
an ongoing discovery dispute.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

LEGAL STANDARD
As the Court explained in its CMO, motions to amend filed after the scheduling
order deadline are subject to the more restrictive provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). Case
Mgmt. Order, ¶ 2 n. 2, Dkt. 9 (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d
604, 609 (9th Cir.1992)). The good cause standard under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) is
determined by the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Mammoth Recreations,
975 F.2d at 609. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule, or allow the
amendment, only if the deadline could not have reasonably been met despite the diligence
of the party seeking the amendment. Id. Importantly, the Ninth Circuit makes clear that if
the party moving for the amendment was not diligent, the inquiry ends. Id.
ANALYSIS
In this case, Strosnider fails to demonstrate how he could not have reasonably met
the July 29 deadline. Notably, Strosnider acknowledges that the new claim is merely an
“alternative theory” to his whistleblower claim, and that he wants to add the claim “out of
an abundance of caution.” Def. Brief, p. 3, Dkt. 36. Strosnider points to no new
information or evidence, no change in the law, and no other justifiable reason why he
could not have asserted the new claim in his original Complaint – or at least before
expiration of the amended pleadings deadline of July 29. Accordingly, Strosnider has
failed to demonstrate good cause for amending the CMO, and his request to amend shall
be denied.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 34) is DENIED.

DATED: February 22, 2016

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3