IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 27, 2008
RODGER ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF,
FROSTHOLM 2003 LIVING TRUST, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff moves for leave to amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 15. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants based on discovery indicating they are owners of the property where Plaintiff allegedly encountered barriers.
Defendant counters that Plaintiff's motion fails to address Rule 16's good cause standard applicable to amendment of the portion of the Rule 16 scheduling order concerning Plaintiff's motion, and has not shown that amendment is justified under Rule 15.
Since Plaintiff's motion to amend was filed after the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order issued on January 29, 2008 ("Scheduling Order"), Rule 16's good cause standard applies to amend whatever provision of the Scheduling Order is affected by Plaintiff's Rule 15 amendment motion, because the Scheduling Order does not prescribe otherwise. Even though Plaintiff "did not specifically request that the court modify its scheduling order" and rather "merely move[s] to amend [his] complaint" under Rule 15, the motion is "treated as a de facto [Rule 16] motion to amend [the "no further amendments" provision and other affected provisions] of the scheduling order." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). The Rule 15 amendment question is only reached if Plaintiff shows amendment of the pertinent portions of the Scheduling Order is justified under Rule 16's good cause standard.
Since Plaintiff has not shown good cause justifying amendment of the portions of the Scheduling Order pertinent to the amendment he seeks under Rule 15, the motion is denied.