The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT ACCELERATED PAYMENT
This is an employment action alleging wrongful termination, breach of contract, and failure to pay wage commissions. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Clarify/Streamline Pleading for Trial, filed on December 1, 2011. [Doc. No. 38.] On December 5, 2011, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to expedite hearing on the motion.
Defendant then filed an opposition, and Plaintiff replied. [Doc. Nos. 42, 43.] The Court took the motion under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Having considered the parties' arguments, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to amend.
Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated in violation of an agreement not to terminate him except for good cause. Plaintiff further alleges that another agreement between him and Defendant provided that Defendant would continue to pay him commission even after termination unless Plaintiff was terminated for good cause. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached that agreement and did not pay him his commission after termination.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on September 2, 2010 in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) unconscionable contract; (3) prevention of performance; (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) unfair competition; (7) failure to pay wages when due; (8) labor code penalties; and (9) declaratory relief. Defendant answered on September 28, 2010, and then removed the action to this Court on September 30, 2010. [Doc. Nos. 1, 2.] Magistrate Judge Adler issued a Scheduling Order on March 1, 2011, setting certain deadlines. [Doc. No. 17.] Among those deadlines was the following:
Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed on or before May 2, 2011.
(Scheduling Order ¶ 1 [Doc. No. 17].) The Magistrate Judge subsequently granted the parties' joint motions to modify the Scheduling Order on July 18, 2011, on September 19, 2011, and again on November 1, 2011. [See Doc. Nos. 23, 26, 31.] None of these modifications, however, altered paragraph one of the original Scheduling Order, which set the deadline for filing "[a]ny motion to joint other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings."
The parties subsequently engaged in discovery, including propounding and responding to written discovery requests, completing a number of depositions, and exchanging expert reports. On November 18, 2011, consistent with the latest modification of the Scheduling Order, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 35.] The Court scheduled the motion for a hearing on Monday, January 9, 2012.
On December 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed the present motion seeking leave to amend the complaint, attaching the proposed amended complaint to the motion. The parties then submitted a joint motion to expedite hearing on the motion to amend, which the Court granted. Defendant filed an opposition on December 14, 2011, and Plaintiff filed a reply on December 16, 2011. The Court took the motion under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).
Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) liberally allows for amendments to pleadings. Coleman v. Quaker Oats, Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). However, once the Court issues a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16 setting a deadline for amending the pleadings, the Court must look to that rule in determining whether amendment should be allowed. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) requires the party requesting amendment to demonstrate "good cause" for seeking amendment late. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608.
"'A court's evaluation of good cause [under Rule 16(b)] is not coextensive with an inquiry into the propriety of the amendment under ... Rule 15.'" Id. at 609 (citation omitted). Rather, the "good cause" standard "primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Id. "Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end." Id. (internal citation omitted). Once "good cause" is shown, the party must demonstrate the amendment would still be proper under Rule 15. Id. at 608. Under Rule 15, leave to ...