Arteaga-Ruiz et al v. United States of America

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 28 Motion to Amend Complaint. Plaintiffs shall have until 7/29/2015 to file a response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 25 ). 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 (cjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

JOSE ARTEAGA-RUIZ et. al.,
Case No. 4:14-cv-00061-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
United States of America,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend/Correct the Amended
Complaint. (Dkt. 28). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is
denied. Plaintiffs shall file a response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 25) on or
before July 29, 2015.
BACKGROUND
Under the Court Scheduling Order, amended pleadings and joinder of parties were
due on September 19, 2014. (Dkt. 12). Plaintiffs—Jose Arteaga-Ruiz, Lilia Ruiz-Arteaga,
and Jose Arteaga-Arteaga—filed their second motion to amend the complaint nearly
seven months past this deadline on May 18, 2015. (Dkt. 28). Plaintiffs bring the present
action against Defendant, the United States of America, for negligence, false

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

imprisonment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress in connection with the wrongful deportation of a U.S. Citizen, Plaintiff
Arteaga-Ruiz. In the proposed amended complaint, Plaintiffs attempt to assert the
coercive nature of Arteaga-Ruiz’s signature on a Stipulated Request for Removal order.
Sec. Am. Compl., ¶¶ 15-19, Dkt. 28-1. Additionally, Plaintiffs attempt to assert new state
law claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution against Defendant. Id.at ¶ 30,
Dkt. 28-1.
On October 23, 2014, more than one month after the expiration of the deadline to
amend pleadings or join parties, the Court granted the parties’ Stipulation to Hold Case in
Abeyance (Dkt. 23) pending the United States Supreme Court decisions in the following
cases: United States v. June, Case No. 13-1075 and United States v. Wong, Case No. 131074. Following the lift of the stay and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 25),
Plaintiffs have filed the present motion to amend their complaint. (Dkt. 28).
LEGAL STANDARD
The court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff
has previously amended the complaint. World Wide Rush, LLC v. City of Los Angeles,
606 F.3d 676, 690 (9th Cir. 2010). This Court stated in the Case Management Order, ¶ 2,
Dkt. 12, that the September 19, 2014, deadline to amend pleadings or join parties “shall
only be amended for good cause.” Furthermore, the Court stated that motions to amend
filed after that deadline would be subject to the more restrictive provisions of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 16(b) rather than Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), where amendments are liberally permitted.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Case Mgmt. Order, ¶ 2 n.2, Dkt. 12 (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, if the deadline could not have reasonably been met despite the diligence of
the party seeking the amendment. Id.
ANALYSIS
In the instant case, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate how they could not have
reasonably met the September 19, 2014, deadline. There is no indication that Plaintiffs
attempted to amend the complaint, or modify the scheduling order, prior to September 19,
2014. Furthermore, aside from Plaintiffs’ counsel conducting further research, Plaintiffs
fail to show what gave rise to the new information sought to be included in the proposed
complaint. Memo in Support of Mot. to Am. Compl., 3, Dkt. 28-2. Plaintiffs claim that the
amendment is necessary to clarify the coercive nature under which Defendant obtained
Arteaga-Ruiz’s signature on the Stipulated Request for Removal Order and Waiver. Id.
However, these reasons do not demonstrate Plaintiffs’ inability to comply with the
scheduling deadline despite their diligence.
Finally, Plaintiffs contend that filing the second amended complaint on May 18,
2015, does not disrupt the agreed-upon course of litigation approved by the Court. Reply
at 5, Dkt. 31. The Court disagrees. The stay granted to await the U.S. Supreme Court
decisions occurred after the deadline to amend pleadings and therefore did not affect this

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

deadline. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate good cause for the
amendment of the complaint, and their request to amend is denied.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 28) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiffs shall have until July 29, 2015 to file a response to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss. (Dkt. 25).
DATED: July 8, 2015

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4