Baker v. Hale

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 JAMALL BAKER, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C22-1672-LK-MLP 10 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER 11 LAURA LEE HALE, et al., 12 Defendants.

14 This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before 15 the Court on Defendants’ motion to amend their amended answer to Plaintiff’s amended 16 complaint. (Dkt. # 18.) Specifically, Defendants seek leave to amend their amended answer to 17 plead an affirmative defense of statute of limitations with respect to Defendants Laura Lee Hale 18 and Valerie Weber, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. (See id.) 19 Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion, arguing that Defendants have waived the 20 affirmative defense by operation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(c) and 12(b), both of 21 which require that defenses to a claim for relief be set forth in a responsive pleading. (Dkt. # 20 22 at 3-4.) Plaintiff asserts as well that Defendants did not apprise him of their desire to amend their 23 amended answer until after the deadline for amended pleadings established by the Court’s Order 1 Setting Pretrial Schedule had passed, and he suggests that this likewise constitutes a reason to 2 deny Defendants’ motion to amend. (See id. at 4-5). 3 If a party seeks to amend its pleadings after the date specified in the court’s scheduling 4 order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) governs the request. Johnson v. Mammoth 5 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). In such circumstances, the court must first 6 determine if a party has met the standard under Rule 16(b) to modify a scheduling order before 7 turning to the question of whether amendment is proper under Rule 15(a). See id.; MMMT 8 Holdings Corp. v. NSGI Holdings, Inc., 2014 WL 2573290, at *2 (W.D. Wash. 2014). 9 Rule 16 requires that a party show “good cause” for not having amended their pleading 10 prior to the expiration of the time specified in the court’s scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P.

11 16(b)(4); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Johnson, 975 12 F.2d at 607-09). When determining whether a party has demonstrated good cause, the court 13 “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 14 609. If a party has acted diligently but still cannot reasonably meet the scheduling deadlines, the 15 court may allow modification of the pretrial schedule. Id. However, “if that party was not 16 diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. 17 The deadline to amend pleadings in this matter was July 14, 2023. (Dkt. # 15.) 18 Defendants make no effort in their motion papers to demonstrate good cause for their failure to 19 seek amendment prior to that date. Plaintiff’s original and amended pleadings, filed on

20 November 22, 2022, and January 26, 2023, respectively, made clear that his allegations against 21 Dr. Hale arose out of conduct that occurred between June 28, 2017, and January 14, 2019. (See 22 Dkt. # 1 at ¶¶ 3.4-3.6, 3.9, 3.11, 3.15-3.18; Dkt. 5 at ¶¶ 3.4-3.6, 3.9, 3.11, 3.15-3.18.) Plaintiff’s 23 pleadings also made clear that his allegations against Dr. Weber arose out of conduct that 1 occurred on November 16, 2019. (Dkt. # 1 at ¶¶ 3.13, 3.19; Dkt. # 5 at ¶¶ 3.13, 3.19.) It therefore 2 should have been evident from the face of Plaintiff’s pleadings that Dr. Hale and Dr. Weber had 3 a potentially viable statute of limitations defense available to them. 4 Defendants filed their original and amended answers on February 1, 2023.1 (Dkt. ## 8, 5 9.) However, it was not until August 18, 2023, over six months after those pleadings were filed, 6 and over a month after the Court’s established deadline to amend pleadings expired, that 7 Defendants’ counsel first reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel concerning the addition of the statute 8 of limitations defense. (See dkt. # 18-1 at ¶ 5; dkt. # 20 at 3.) The record suggests that the failure 9 of Defendants to include the statute of limitations defense in their original pleadings, and the 10 failure to seek leave to amend their amended answer prior to the established deadline, was a

11 mere oversight. As the Ninth Circuit has stated, “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of 12 diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 13 This Court finds that Defendants have not established good cause under Rule 16(b) for 14 failing to seek amendment prior to July 14, 2023, and the Court therefore does not reach the 15 question of whether amendment would be proper under Rule 15(a). Based on the foregoing, the 16 Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants’ motion for leave to amend their amended answer (dkt. 17 # 18) is DENIED. 18 DATED this 24th day of October, 2023.

19 20 A

MICHELLE L. PETERSON 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22

23 1 It appears that the amended answer added a defense of qualified immunity which had been omitted from the original answer. (See dkt. # 8 at 8-9; dkt. # 9 at 8-9.)