Northview Christian Church Inc v. J & J Group Inc et al

Filing 96

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 77 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Defendants shall file their Amended Answer by 4/29/2011. 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 cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

NORTHVIEW CHRISTIAN CHURCH,
INC.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 4:10-CV-382-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
J & J GROUP, INC. JASON SOUTH
MECHANICAL SYSTEM
SOLUTIONSGROUP, PLLC, d/b/a
Engineering System Solutions, MS2EE
PLLC, dba Engineering System
Solutions, E & D Company PLLC,
d/b/a Engineering System Solutions,
ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL
DETAILING, LLC, d/b/a Engineering
System Solutions,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Defendants’ Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (Dkt.
77). Defendants claim they “mistakenly admitted” in their Answer that each of the
Defendants individually contracted with LPDJ Architects, LLC. They maintain instead
that only Defendants Mechanical System Solutions Group, PLLC and E & D Company, PLLC
contracted with LPDJ. Defendants now ask the Court to allow them to amend their
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Answer to correct this “unintentional typographical error.” For the reasons set forth
below, the Court will grant the motion.
BACKGROUND
Northview filed its Complaint in the Northern District of Texas on February 25,
2010. Defendants responded by filing several pre-trial motions, including a motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and a motion for a more definite statement. On
July 13, 2010, the Northern District of Texas court found that it did lack personal
jurisdiction over Defendants, but in lieu of dismissing the claims against Defendants, the
court severed those claims and transferred them to this Court. The Texas court also
denied Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement as moot.
After the transfer to this Court, Defendants filed a second motion for a more
definite statement (Dkt. 38). And on September 15, 2010, before the motion for a more
definite statement was fully briefed, the Court entered a Case Management Order setting
the deadline to amend the pleadings for December 15, 2010. (Dkt. 43). The court heard
oral argument on the motion for a more definite statement on November 1, 2010, which it
subsequently denied. The parties, however, stipulated to the filing of an amended
complaint because the original complaint had been drafted in connection with the Texas
action. The parties agreed that Northview would file the amended complaint by
December 15, 2010 – the deadline to amend pleadings – and Defendants would file their
answer within the time permitted by the rules.
Northview filed the Amended Complaint on December 8, 2010, and Defendants
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

filed their Answer on December 23, 2010 – eight days after the deadline to amend the
pleadings. Defendants maintain that soon after they filed their Answer they discovered
“an unintentional factual error,” i.e., they admitted that each of the Defendants
individually contracted with LPDJ. As soon as they discovered the error, Defendants
filed this motion, on February 3, 2011.
ANALYSIS
The deadline set forth in the Case Management Order for amending the pleadings
has passed. Therefore, Rule 16 governs whether Defendants will be allowed to amend
their pleadings. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). “A party seeking to amend a pleading after the date specified in the
scheduling order must first show good cause for amendment under Rule 16, then if good cause
be shown, the party must demonstrate that amendment was proper under Rule 15.” Johnson, 975
F.2d at 608 (internal citations omitted). The “good cause” standard under Rule 16 focuses

primarily on the “diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id. at 609.
Here, Defendants could not have filed an amended answer prior to the deadline for
amending the pleadings because, through the stipulation of the parties, Defendants answer
to the amended complaint was not due until after the deadline already passed. Therefore,
Defendants did not show a lack of diligence by failing to file their motion to amend the
answer before the deadline for amending pleadings. The Court therefore finds that the
good cause standard for amending the scheduling order has been satisfied.
Moreover, the Court finds that Northview would not suffer undue prejudice by
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

allowing Defendants to amend their answer. Northview argues that it will suffer
prejudice because it relied on Defendants’ admission that all Defendants contracted with
LPDJ. However, this admission stood for only slightly over a month – Defendants filed
their original Answer on December 23, 2010, and then sought to amend their Answer on
February 3, 2011, when discovery had only begun. Therefore, Northview cannot
reasonably argue that it shifted its entire litigation strategy based on this “admission.”
Also, the parties stipulated to amend the Case Management Order so they would have
until August 31, 2011 to complete discovery. This allows Northview ample time to
conduct discovery on this issue.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (Dkt.
77) is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their Amended Answer no later than April 29,
2011.
DATED: April 21, 2011

B. LYNN WINMILL
Chief Judge U.S. District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4