United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PERMIT FILING OF FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC. 31)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Findings
and Recommendations
Currently
pending before the Court is Plaintiff Herardo Dionicio
Martinez's motion for leave to file a first amended
complaint and to modify the scheduling order pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). (Doc. 31.) Defendants
County of Fresno and Anita Harper opposed the motion on
November 1, 2019. (Doc. 33.) The Court found the motion
appropriate for resolution without oral argument and vacated
the November 15, 2019 hearing. See Local Rule
230(g). The matter is deemed submitted.
BACKGROUND
On
March 26, 2018, Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit in Fresno
County Superior Court alleging discrimination by the County
of Fresno and Anita Harper due to Plaintiff's sexual
orientation. Defendant Harper was sued in her official
capacity as Deputy Public Guardian of the
County.[1] (Doc. 1.) In the complaint, Plaintiff
alleged that Defendant Harper was appointed as limited
conservator of Robert Camarillo on June 3, 2013. Prior to the
appointment, Plaintiff had a social and romantic same sex
relationship with Mr. Camarillo. This relationship continued
until approximately the summer of 2016 when Defendant Harper
allegedly interfered the relationship by accusing Plaintiff
of being abusive toward Mr. Camarillo when there was no
evidence of any such abuse. Defendant Harper's
interference with the relationship reportedly began after
Plaintiff made grievances in 2015 against the group home
where Defendant Harper placed Mr. Camarillo. (See
Doc. 1, Compl. at ¶¶ 8-9.) Plaintiff further
alleged that Defendant Harper knew that Mr. Camarillo had a
social and romantic relationship with Plaintiff even when
Defendant Harper sought a conservatorship over Mr. Camarillo
in 2013. Defendant Harper also allegedly knew that Mr.
Camarillo considered himself to be gay and considered
Plaintiff to be his boyfriend. Defendant Harper took no
actions against Plaintiff at that time. However, in 2016,
allegedly without probable cause, Defendant Harper began
falsely accusing Plaintiff of wrongdoing toward Mr.
Camarillo, even going so far as to refer to Plaintiff as a
“sexual predator” and claiming that Plaintiff was
forcing a sexual relationship on Mr. Camarillo. Defendant
Harper's attacks allegedly were false and were motivated
by discrimination and bias based on Plaintiff's sexual
orientation. Defendant Harper also allegedly communicated her
false claims about Plaintiff to the group home where she had
placed Mr. Camarillo and insisted that the group home prevent
Mr. Camarillo and Plaintiff from seeing each other.
(Id. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff forwarded claims for
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment against the County and Defendant Harper in her
official capacity, violation of the California Constitution,
and violation of California Civil Code § 52.1.
(Id. at ¶¶ 12-20.)
The
case was removed to this Court on June 8, 2018, based on
federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) On September 5,
2018, the Court issued a Scheduling Conference Order.
According to that Order, the deadline to file all stipulated
amendments to the parties' pleadings or motions to amend
expired on October 15, 2018. (Doc. 13 at 3.)
On June
14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the Scheduling
Conference Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16(b)(4). (Doc. 18.) According to the motion, Plaintiff
sought modification due primarily to events involving current
and former counsel, including other conflicting matters.
(Id.) In response to the motion, the Court held a
telephonic status conference and directed the parties to meet
and confer to determine whether a stipulation could be
reached resolving Plaintiff's motion to modify the
Scheduling Conference Order. (Doc. 21.)
On July
2, 2019, the Court partially granted the parties'
stipulation to modify the Scheduling Order, which extended
the deadlines for expert disclosures, non-expert and expert
discovery, pretrial motions, the pretrial conference and
trial. (Doc. 23.) The stipulation and order did not include
modification of the deadline for amendment to the
parties' pleadings. On July 8, 2019, the Court issued an
amended order modifying only the trial date. (Doc. 24.) In
both modification orders, the Court expressly advised the
parties that further requests for continuances on the basis
of counsel's lack of preparation would be looked upon
with disfavor and that no further extensions or modifications
of the deadlines in this case would be granted absent a
demonstrated showing of good cause. (Doc. 23 at 3; Doc. 24 at
3.)
On
October 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to permit the
filing of a first amended complaint, to resolve an
outstanding discovery dispute, and to modify the scheduling
order. (Doc. 29.) The Court determined that the motion did
not comply with this Court's Local Rules and should not
consolidate multiple issues in a single motion. Accordingly,
the Court directed Plaintiff to re-notice the matter as two
separate motions. (Doc. 30, )
On
October 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to
permit the filing of a first amended complaint and to modify
the scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16(b)(4).[2] (Doc. 31.) In seeking leave to amend,
Plaintiff explains that the basis of his original complaint
was the following:
[T]he County of Fresno and Harper violated his civil rights
by filing a Request for a Temporary Restraining Order in
early 2018, alleging among other things that:
a) Plaintiff abused Robert Camarillo
[“Camarillo”] by not returning him to his group
home on August 3, 2016, by the prescribed curfew;
b) the “offender [Plaintiff] will try to remove the
victim [Camarillo] from his place of residence and will
emotionally abuse him” if the ...