United States District Court, S.D. California
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Amend Case Management Conference Order and Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 55) filed by Plaintiff Jesus Garcia.
On May 12, 2014, Plaintiff Jesus Garcia initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Defendants United States of America, National Steel and Shipbuilding Company ("National Steel"), and Oilkleen, Inc. ("Oilkleen"). (ECF No. 1). On May 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint as a matter of course against the same Defendants. (ECF No. 4). On May 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) against the same Defendants after obtaining leave of Court (ECF No. 6).
On June 12, 2014, National Steel filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 8). On July 28, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying National Steel's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 20).
On October 31, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an Case Management Conference Order Regulating Discovery and other Pretrial Proceedings. (ECF No. 39). The case management order stated that "[a]ny motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed on or before December 15, 2014." Id. at 1.
On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 50). On March 26, 2015, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff's motion. (ECF No. 54). The Court's Order stated that "[i]n this case, Plaintiff fails to show good cause' to modify the scheduling order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). Defendant's motion failed to provide any reasoning for amending the scheduling order or amending the Second Amended Complaint." Id. at 3.
On March 31, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend Case Management Conference Order and Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 55). On April 16, 2015, Defendant United States filed a response in opposition of Plaintiff's motion. (ECF No. 59). Defendants Oilkleen and National Steel have not filed responses to Plaintiff's motion. On April 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 62).
CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES
Plaintiff contends that good cause exists for the Court to amend the scheduling order. Plaintiff contends that Defendant United States's initial disclosures, and Defendant National Steel's Initial Critique Report both identified Janet Mahn as an employee of PMS 117, a United States Navy organization. Plaintiff contends that he therefore "erroneously believed that Janet Mahn was employed by Defendant United States of America...." (ECF No. 55-2 at 2). Plaintiff contends that it was not until after December 15, 2014, the deadline for amending the pleadings set by the case management conference order (ECF No. 39), that Plaintiff learned that Janet Mahn was employed by American Systems Corporation. Plaintiff contends that as soon as he realized that Janet Mahn was employed by American Systems Corporation he filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint adding American Systems Corporation as a Defendant. Plaintiff contends that there was no undue delay on Plaintiff's part in moving to add American Systems Corporation to the case as soon as he became aware of its role in his accident.
Defendant United States contends that Plaintiff's motion fails to adhere to the requirements of the Court's Civil Chambers Rule VII. Defendant United States contends that Rule VII requires that any request to reschedule a case management order deadline must address the original date or deadline; the number of previous requests to reschedule; and whether rescheduling the date or deadline will affect other dates in the Case Management Conference Order. Defendant United States contends that Plaintiff only addressed the deadline to amend the complaint, requesting an extension until May 15, 2015, but did not address the impact on the remaining case management order dates if his motion is granted, specifically the expert report disclosure deadline, the discovery cut-off date, and the pre-trial and trial dates, all of which would be impacted by the proposed amendment.
If Plaintiff's motions are granted, Defendant United States requests that the corresponding continuances be made to both the expert report disclosure deadline and the discovery cut-off date.
RULING OF THE COURT
I. Motion to Amend Case Management ...