Lyon et al v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.

Filing 66

OPINION and ORDER - Plaintiffs' motion 31 for leave to file amended complaint is DENIED. Signed on 9/22/09 by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

BARBEE B. LYON and JOAN KRUSE, Plaintiffs,
v.

Civ. No. 07-1779-AC OPINION AND ORDER

CHASE BANK. USA, N.A., Defendant.

ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge:
Introduction

Plaintiffs Barbee B. Lyon and Joan Kruse ("Plaintiffs") move the court for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure ("Rule") 15(a). Plaintiffs seek to add two additional claims to their complaint, namely (1) negligent infliction o f emotional distress

OPINION AND ORDER

1

{KPR}

and (2) b r e a c h o f the contractual covenant o f g o o d faith and fair dealing. D e f e n d a n t Chase B a n k USA, N.A. 1 ( " C h a s e ' ' ) opposes t h e m o t i o n . Procedural Background O n M a r c h 11, 2008, t h e court issued a scheduling o r d e r setting a J u l y 29, 2008, deadline for a m e n d i n g p l e a d i n g s . T h e d e a d l i n e for f i l i n g d i s p o s i t i v e m o t i o n s w a s s e t f o r S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , o n w h i c h d a t e C h a s e filed i t s m o t i o n for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t . T h i s m o t i o n t o a m e n d w a s filed b y Plaintiffs o n O c t o b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 8 . Discussion R u l e 15 governs amendments to pleadings, and states, i n relevant part, t h a t where a p a r t y has already b e e n s e r v e d w i t h a r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g , " a p a r t y m a y a m e n d its p l e a d i n g o n l y w i t h t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y ' s w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o r t h e c o u r t ' s leave. T h e c o u r t s h o u l d f r e e l y g i v e l e a v e w h e n j u s t i c e so requires." FED. R. ClV. P. 15(a)(1 ) - ( 2 ) ( 2 0 0 7 ) . T h e court recognizes t h a t a liberal standard is applied to m o t i o n s for leave to amend. AmerisourceBergen Co. v. D i a l y s i s t West, Inc., 465 F . 3 d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). E v e n so, " a district court n e e d n o t grant leave to a m e n d w h e r e the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought i n b a d faith; (3) produces an undue delay i n litigation; o r (4) is futile." Id. H o w e v e r , w h e r e t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d d e a d l i n e for a m e n d m e n t s t o p l e a d i n g s h a s passed, a r e q u e s t t o a m e n d a p l e a d i n g first r e q u i r e s t h e c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r i t s s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r s h o u l d b e modified. R u l e 16 states, i n relevant part, that "[ aJschedule m a y b e m o d i f i e d o n l y for good cause

1 P u r s u a n t t o m i n u t e o r d e r d a t e d M a r c h 11, 2 0 0 8 , t h e c o u r t d i r e c t e d t h e c l e r k o f c o u r t t o " c o r r e c t t h e n a m e d d e f e n d a n t a n d c h a n g e t h e c a p t i o n , " c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e n a m e g i v e n i n t h e answer. T h e c l e r k p e r f o r m e d t h e c o r r e c t i o n w h i c h i s r e f l e c t e d o n t h e d o c k e t sheet. H e r e i n a f t e r , d o c u m e n t s filed i n this m a t t e r shall b e captioned in accordance w i t h the c o u r t ' s order.

OPINION A N D O R D E R

2

{KPR}

and with the j u d g e ' s consent." FED. R. CIv. P. 16(b)(4) (2008). A local rule i n this district further provides that "objections to a n y court-imposed deadline m u s t b e raised b y m o t i o n and must: (1) S h o w good cause w h y the deadlines should b e modified[;] (2) S h o w effective p r i o r use o f time; (3) Recommend a n e w date for t h e deadline i n question[; and] (4) S h o w the i m p a c t o f t h e proposed extension u p o n other existing deadlines, settings, o r schedules." District o fOregon, L o c a l Rules o f Civil Practice ("LR'') 16.3(a) (2006). " A party seeking to amend a pleading after a scheduling order has b e e n entered pursuant to Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 16(b) m u s t first s h o w ' good cause' for amending t h e s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r before t h e c o u r t considers w h e t h e r t h e a m e n d m e n t satisfies t h e requirements o f Rule 15(a}." A s h b y v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2 0 0 7 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97502, at *4 (D. Or. Sept. 26, 2007) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F . 2 d 604, 608 ( 9 t h Cir. 1992». Plaintiffs h a v e m a d e n o s h o w i n g o f g o o d cause t o j u s t i f y a m e n d i n g t h e scheduling o r d e r t o add two n e w claims f o r r e l i e f a t this stage o f the case. "Rule 1 6 ( b ) ' s ' g o o d c a u s e ' standard primarily c o n s i d e r s t h e d i l i g e n c e o f t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g t h e a m e n d m e n t . " J o h n s o n , 9 7 5 F . 2 d at 609. A c c o r d i n g to Plaintiffs, prior to the amendment deadline they sent a c o p y o f this m o t i o n to opposing counsel. W h e n o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l f a i l e d to t i m e l y r e s p o n d w i t h a d e f i n i t i v e a n s w e r , P l a i n t i f f s forgot a b o u t t h e m o t i o n u n t i l " s e v e r a l w e e k s l a t e r , " a t w h i c h time P l a i n t i f f s w e r e i n f o r m e d t h a t C h a s e w o u l d oppose the motion. However, this does n o t release Plaintiffs from their d u t y to exercise due diligence i n prosecuting their case. C h a s e ' s failure to respond to Plaintiffs' request does not constitute good c a u s e s u f f i c i e n t t o m e e t P l a i n t i f f s ' t h r e s h o l d s h o w i n g r e q u i r e d u n d e r R u l e 16(b). Plaintiffs' have also failed to meet the requirements o f t h e local rule. Plaintiffs did n o t " [ s] h o w effective use o f p r i o r time," n o r did they suggest a n e w deadline o r outline what the change

OPINION A N D O R D E R

3

{KPR}

might m e a n for existing deadlines. L R 16.3(a). I n fact, the c o u r t w o u l d likely need to reopen discovery and set a n e w discovery closure date to allow Chase the opportunity to conduct discovery o n the n e w claims, which t h e court is not willing to do at this stage o f the case. E v e n i f Plaintiffs m e t the good cause standard, their failure to comply w i t h the local r u l e weighs against the court exercising its discretion to alter its scheduling order to facilitate Plaintiffs' requested amendment. Because Plaintiffs fail to m e e t their burdens u n d e r R u l e 16 a n d L R 16.3, the court need not d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e a m e n d m e n t w o u l d b e p e r m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e 15(a). Conclusion F o r the reasons stated, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File A m e n d e d Complaint (#31) is DENIED. D A T E D this 2 2 n d d a y o f September, 2009. ./'

-~)/-)
./ !

(J,--~L-

HNV.ACOSTA States Magistrate J u d g e

OPINION A N D O R D E R

4

{KPR}