Mainor v. Acctcorp of Southern Nevada et al

Filing 130

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 115 the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. The Motion 119 to Extend Time is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 117 , for the reasons stated in the Motion, the Motion to Seal is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that dispositive motions are due by 2/11/19 with responses due 3/4/19 and replies due 3/25/19. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/22/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

CAROL MAINOR ,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:16-cv-00183-RFB-PAL

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC.,

12

Defendants.

13
14
15

Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Second
Amended and Supplemental Complaint. (ECF No. 115). The Court denies this motion.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

The Court makes the following factual findings. Plaintiff filed an individual action against

19

Defendant on January 29, 2016. Plaintiff’s current motion is based upon a document—the

20

February 29, 2016 ACDV—that was produced on June 6, 2016. Discovery was initially scheduled

21

to close on December 8, 2016. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental or

22

Amended Complaint on December 5, 2016. (ECF No. 34) This Motion sought to expand Plaintiff’s

23

claim to include an additional claim(s) and convert it into a class action. On September 29, 2017,

24

the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion. (ECF No. 51). On November 9, 2017, the Court upon motion

25

of the Plaintiff reopened discovery as to the class claims only. (ECF No. 59) Class discovery closed

26

on June 13, 2018. On August 16, 2018, the Court granted Experian’s Motion to Dismiss the

27

individual and class claims added in Plaintiff’s Supplemental Complaint. (ECF No. 114). This

28

order allowed only Plaintiff’s original claim as to a violation of Section 1681i of the Fair Credit

1

Reporting Act (“FCRA”) for failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. On August 26, 2018,

2

the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint. (ECF

3

No. 115). This second Motion seeks add an additional individual and class action claim regarding

4

the violation of Section 1681e(a) of FCRA.

5
6

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

7

Rule 15(a) requires that motions to amend be liberally granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

8

Rule 15(d) provides that “o[n] motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms,

9

permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event

10

that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). “Rule

11

15(d) provides a mechanism for parties to file additional causes of action based on facts that didn’t

12

exist when the original complaint was filed.” Eid v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 621 F.3d 858, 874 (9th

13

Cir. 2010)(internal citations omitted).

14

Motions to amend may be denied on the basis of such factors as undue delay, bad faith,

15

failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice, and futility of the

16

amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

17

Rule 16(b)(4) requires that a Plaintiff demonstrate “good cause” to amend a scheduling

18

order, including the amendment of pleadings after the time permitted by a court for such

19

amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992).

20
21

III.

DISCUSSION

22

The Court denies the Plaintiff’s Motion she has failed to establish good cause. Moreover,

23

even if the Court were to apply to the more liberal standard under Rule 15, the Court finds that

24

there has been undue delay and that unfair prejudice to the Defendant would result from

25

amendment.

26

The Court notes that it had granted the Plaintiff leave (ECF No. 114) to file a second motion

27

to amend and establish good cause for such an amendment. The Court finds that “good cause” is

28

-2-

1

required for the Plaintiff to prevail, as it was not the Court’s intention, after such extensive

2

discovery, to permit Plaintiff to freely amend her Complaint.

3

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has had the information and documents to amend her

4

Complaint as suggested in the instant motion since at least June 6, 2016 when the ACDV from

5

February 2016 was produced. This was more than a month before the July 26, 2016 deadline for

6

amendment. Indeed, despite having this information, Plaintiff still did not seek to add the instant

7

claims in her first Supplemental Complaint filed on October 13, 2017. Plaintiff has known of the

8

basis for proposed amendment for over two years. The Court finds it irrelevant as to what position

9

Defendant may have taken as to the relevant statutes, as Plaintiff has the obligation to be cognizant

10

of and diligent regarding her own potential claims. Based upon these facts and the totality of the

11

record here, the Court finds that Plaintiff unreasonably and unduly delayed seeking amendment of

12

her Complaint for the claims in the instant motion.

13

Moreover, even if the Court were to apply the more liberal standard, the Court still finds

14

that amendment at this juncture would be unduly prejudicial to the Defendant. There has been

15

extensive discovery in this case. Plaintiff has been permitted to reopen discovery once already by

16

this Court. This discovery has proceeded along specified theories of liability. Allowing Plaintiff

17

to yet again amend her Complaint would be tantamount to allowing a revolving door of theories

18

of liability in this case. It must stop here.

19

Accordingly,

20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

21
22
23

Complaint (ECF No. 115) is DENIED. The Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 119) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Motion, the Motion to
Seal (ECF No. 117) is GRANTED.

24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that dispositive motions are due by February 11, 2019

25

with responses due March 4, 2019 and replies due March 25, 2019. ALL briefs, excluding

26

exhibits, will be limited to 15 pages with the possibility of sanctions, up to and including

27

dispositive sanctions for violation of this limitation.

28

-3-

1

DATED this 22nd day of January, 2019.
___________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-